4464 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 319.56–2 [Amended] 

■ 30. In § 319.56–2, paragraph (k) is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘11 

species of fruit flies and one species of 

seed weevil’’ and adding the words 

‘‘plant pests’’ in their place. 

■ 31. Section 319.74–2 is amended as 

follows by redesignating paragraph (d) 

as paragraph (e) and by adding a new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 319.74–2 Conditions governing the entry 

of cut flowers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Irradiation. Cut flowers and foliage 

that are required under this part to be 

treated or subjected to inspection to 

control one or more of the plant pests 

listed in § 305.31(a) of this chapter may 

instead be treated with irradiation. 

Commodities treated with irradiation for 

plant pests listed in § 305.31(a) must be 

irradiated at the doses listed in 

§ 305.31(a), and the irradiation 

treatment must be conducted in 

accordance with the other requirements 

of § 305.34 of this chapter. There is a 

possibility that some cut flowers could 

be damaged by such irradiation. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

January 2006. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–746 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 52 

RIN 3150–AH56 

AP1000 Design Certification 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) is 

amending its regulations to certify the 

AP1000 standard plant design. This 

action is necessary so that applicants or 

licensees intending to construct and 

operate an AP1000 design may do so by 

referencing this regulation [AP1000 

design certification rule (DCR)]. The 

applicant for certification of the AP1000 

design was Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this rule is February 27, 2006. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

material specified in this regulation is 

approved by the Director of the Office 

of the Federal Register as of February 

27, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Quinones-Navarro or Jerry N. 

Wilson, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001; telephone (301) 415–2007 or (301) 

415–3145; e-mail: lnq@nrc.gov or 

jnw@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background. 

II. Comment Analysis 

A. Design Control Document 

B. Design Certification Rule 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Introduction (Section I) 

B. Definitions (Section II) 

C. Scope and Contents (Section III) 

D. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions (Section IV) 

E. Applicable Regulations (Section V) 

F. Issue Resolution (Section VI) 

G. Duration of this Appendix (Section VII) 

H. Processes for Changes and Departures 

(Section VIII) 

I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (Section IX) 

J. Records and Reporting (Section X) 

IV. Availability of Documents 

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Availability 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

X. Backfit Analysis 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 sets forth 

the process for obtaining standard 

design certifications. On March 28, 2002 

(67 FR 20845; April 26, 2002), 

Westinghouse tendered its application 

for certification of the AP1000 standard 

plant design with the NRC. 

Westinghouse submitted this 

application in accordance with subpart 

B and appendix O of 10 CFR part 52. 

The NRC formally accepted the 

application as a docketed application 

for design certification (Docket No. 52–

006) on June 25, 2002 (67 FR 43690; 

June 28, 2002). The pre-application 

information submitted before the NRC 

formally accepted the application can be 

found in the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) under Docket Number 

PROJ0711 (Project No. 711). 

The NRC staff issued a final safety 

evaluation report (FSER) for the AP1000 

design in September 2004 (NUREG–

1793). The FSER provides the bases for 

issuance of a final design approval 

(FDA) under appendix O to part 52, 

which is a prerequisite to a design 

certification. The FDA for the AP1000 

design was issued on September 13, 

2004, and published in the Federal 

Register on September 17, 2004 (69 FR 

56101). A proposed rule to certify the 

AP1000 was published on April 18, 

2005 (70 FR 20062). 

Subsequently, Westinghouse 

submitted editorial and minor technical 

changes and clarifications to the 

inspections, tests, analyses, and 

acceptance criteria (ITAAC) in revision 

15 to the design control document 

(DCD). The NRC staff evaluated these 

changes in a supplement to the FSER 

(NUREG–1793, Supplement No. 1). 

Supplement No. 1 is being made 

available to the public as part of this 

rulemaking. The FSER and Supplement 

No. 1 provide the bases for the 

Commission’s approval of the AP1000 

standard plant design. An FDA, which 

incorporates the changes to the DCD, 

will be issued to supersede the current 

FDA after issuance of this final design 

certification rule. 

II. Comment Analysis 

The period for submitting comments 

on the proposed DCR, AP1000 DCD, or 

draft environmental assessment (EA) 

expired on July 5, 2005. The NRC 

received three letters from two private 

citizens and one letter from the Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI). The comments 

addressed three categories of 

information: Environmental Assessment 

(EA), Design Control Document, and 

Design Certification Rule. The responses 

to the comments on the EA are 

discussed in section 7.0 of the EA 

(ML053630176). Responses to the 

comments in the second and third 

categories are discussed below. 

A. Design Control Document (DCD) 

Comment summary. There is an overreliance on passive systems in the 

AP1000. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this comment. The NRC required tests of 

the new passive safety systems to 

demonstrate that they will perform as 

predicted in the safety analysis (see 

Chapter 21 of the AP1000 FSER). The 

NRC also required higher availability for 

certain active backup systems to 

compensate for any remaining 

uncertainties in the performance of the 

passive safety systems (see Chapter 22 

of the AP1000 FSER). As a result of 

these reviews, the NRC concluded that 

the use of passive safety systems in the 

AP1000 design is acceptable. 

Comment Summary. The AP1000 is 

an unnecessary and unsafe variation on 

AP600. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with the 

comment. The NRC has determined that 

the AP1000 design can be built and 

operated safely (see AP1000 FSER). The 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4465 

NRC does not determine which designs 

are necessary for future deployment. 

Comment Summary. The AP1000 

DCD referenced in the proposed rule 

does not meet the requirement of 10 

CFR part 52 that the plant design be 

complete except for site-specific 

elements and other specific exemptions. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this comment. The requirement for a 

complete scope of design [10 CFR 

52.47(b)(2)(i)(A)(4)] was met by the 

applicant (see discussion in section 

1.2.1 of AP1000 FSER). The comment 

appears to be directed at the 

requirement for an application to 

contain a sufficient level of design 

information for the Commission to reach 

a conclusion on all safety questions 

associated with the design [10 CFR 

52.47(a)(2)], which was also met by the 

applicant (see discussion in section 1.5 

of AP1000 FSER). 

Comment Summary. The 

appropriateness of the process used to 

derive the AP1000 design from the 

AP600 design has not been given 

sufficient attention in the NRC’s review. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this comment, which appears to apply 

to the NRC’s review of the applicant’s 

quality assurance (QA) program. In its 

application for design certification of 

the AP1000 plant, Westinghouse stated 

that a continuous QA program spanning 

the AP600 design and the AP1000 

design has been used. Since March 31, 

1996, activities affecting the quality of 

items and services for the AP1000 

project during design, procurement, 

fabrication, inspection, and/or testing 

have been performed under the quality 

plan described in ‘‘Westinghouse 

Energy Systems Business Unit—Quality 

Management System.’’ The Quality 

Management System (QMS) establishes 

design control measures for preparing, 

reviewing, and approving design 

documentation for safety-related 

structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs). As documented in an NRC 

evaluation letter, dated February 23, 

1996, from S. Black (NRC) to N.J. 

Liparulo, the Westinghouse QMS was 

reviewed by the NRC and found to meet 

the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, 

appendix B. Subsequent revisions to the 

QMS have also been reviewed by the 

NRC and found to be acceptable. To 

provide additional assurance that 

Westinghouse implemented the 

measures described in the QMS, the 

NRC staff performed a QA 

implementation inspection at the 

Westinghouse engineering offices in 

Monroeville, Pennsylvania, which was 

documented in NRC Inspection Report 

No. 99900404/03–01, dated November 

4, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML033090510). Therefore, the NRC 

concludes that the applicant’s QA 

program for the AP1000 design was 

acceptable. 

Comment Summary. The decision by 

the NRC not to require Westinghouse to 

build and test a prototype for the 

automatic depressurization system 

(ADS) 4th stage squib valve was made 

under pressure of the accelerated 

AP1000 schedule. 

Response. The NRC disagrees that the 

AP1000 schedule affected the decision 

not to require Westinghouse to build 

and test a prototype for the ADS 4th 

stage squib valve. The need for a 

prototype test was evaluated by the NRC 

staff during the AP1000 design review. 

Also, the ability to design and build the 

ADS valve for AP1000 was discussed 

with the Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) at its future 

plant subcommittee meeting on July 17–

18, 2003. In addition, in a letter to ACRS 

dated May 18, 2004, the NRC staff stated 

that the ADS–4 squib valves will be 

designed, constructed, and tested under 

Section III of the Boiler and Pressure 

Vessel Code promulgated by the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers and are actuated by 

redundant and diverse instrumentation 

and control systems. The staff also 

performed a sensitivity study by 

increasing the failure probability and 

the common-cause failure probability of 

the ADS–4 squib valves by an order of 

magnitude. This sensitivity study 

indicated that the CDF increased by 

only a factor of three (to 6 × 10¥7/ 

year)and was not large enough to impact 

the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) 

conclusions and insights about the 

AP1000 design. 

Comment Summary. The effect of heat 

of solar radiation on the performance of 

the AP1000 passive containment 

cooling system (PCS) has not been 

resolved, and geographical latitude 

ought to be a site parameter, unless it 

can be shown that the PCS is effective 

at all geographical latitudes, even when 

heat of solar radiation is taken into 

account. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

these comments. The site parameters for 

the AP1000 design include minimum 

and maximum air temperatures (see 

DCD Table 2–1). The safety maximum 

temperature is 115 °F, which is based on 

historical site data and excludes peaks 

of less than 2-hour durations. 

The operational limits for the AP1000 

containment include a technical 

specification (TS) limit on the 

temperature of the air inside 

containment, TS 3.6.5, ‘‘Containment 

Air Temperature,’’ of less than or equal 

to 120 °F. In addition, there is a limit 

on the water temperature in the PCS 

storage tank specified in TS 3.6.6, 

‘‘Passive Containment Cooling System—

Operating,’’ of greater than or equal to 

¥40 °F and less than or equal to 120 °F. 

If the water temperature is at or below 

50 °F, or at or above 100 °F, the 

surveillance frequency to check the 

temperature is reduced from 7 days to 

24 hours. The operational limits and the 

site parameters provide reasonable 

assurance that the AP1000 can be 

operated without undue risk to the 

public health and safety. Conservative 

evaluations of the potential effect of 

solar radiation on the operation and 

performance of the AP1000 PCS show 

that the AP1000 TS provide reasonable 

assurance that off-normal conditions 

can be detected and appropriate actions 

taken to preclude operations outside the 

current design-base assumptions. Based 

on the estimated time needed to exceed 

the current operational temperature 

limits (10 days of uninterrupted extreme 

environmental conditions), it is 

reasonable to conclude that the AP1000 

operational limits will not be exceeded 

even for sites with high solar radiation. 

In the unlikely event that the shield 

building might heat up, a containment 

response analysis showed the pressure 

increase to be small, 0.75 pounds per 

square inch (psi), and based on the 

current margin of 1.2 psi (DCD Table 

6.2.1.1–1), the design pressure limit of 

73.7 pounds per square inch absolute 

(psia) would not be exceeded. 

Therefore, the effect of heat of solar 

radiation on the performance of the PCS 

has been resolved. 

Comment Summary. The accelerated 

schedule for the AP1000 led to cutting 

regulatory corners and was further 

accelerated by granting the FDA before 

the FSER was made available to the 

public. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this comment. In a letter to Mr. W.E. 

Cummins (Westinghouse), dated July 

12, 2002, it is true that the NRC 

provided an expected schedule for the 

AP1000 review, which was significantly 

shorter than previous DCRs. However, 

the shorter schedule was due to 

efficiencies that the NRC expected to 

achieve as a result of the similarities 

between the previously-approved 

AP600 design and the AP1000 design. 

Also, the AP1000 FSER was made 

available to the public on September 20, 

2004, the same day that the FDA was 

made available to the public. 

B. Design Certification Rule 

It is the Commission’s goal to 

maintain as much consistency as 

possible in the rule language for all of 

the DCRs. Many of the following 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4466 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

comments from NEI appear to be 

applicable to all of the DCRs but some 

repeat comments NEI submitted 

previously during the 2003 proposed 

rule to amend 10 CFR part 52 (68 FR 

40025; July 3, 2003). 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

that Section III.B of the Supplementary 

Information (70 FR 20064) be revised to 

delete the phrase ‘‘not just incorporate 

by reference.’’

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this request. The NRC does agree that 

the plant-specific DCD should be part of 

the final safety analysis report (FSAR) 

for a combined license (COL) 

application. The NRC believes that the 

generic DCD should also be part of the 

FSAR, not just incorporated by 

reference, in order to facilitate the NRC 

staff’s review of any departures or 

exemptions. However, any changes 

made to existing DCRs if part 52 is 

revised would also be made to the 

AP1000 DCR. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

clarification of the review status of 

‘‘operational requirements’’ in Section 

III.F of the Supplementary Information 

(70 FR 20067). 

Response. The NRC agrees that the 

special backfit provisions of 10 CFR 

52.63 do not apply to operational 

requirements in the DCD. However, the 

NRC believes that the discussion in 

Section III.F of the Supplementary 

Information section of the proposed rule 

document accurately states the review 

status of operational requirements and 

does not need to be revised. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

modification of the definition of generic 

TS in section II.B of the AP1000 DCR. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this comment. The NRC stated in the 

Supplementary Information (70 FR 

20063) that the values in brackets are 

neither part of the AP1000 DCR nor are 

they binding. The NRC believes that 

amending the definition of generic TS is 

not necessary and also wants to 

maintain consistent rule language for all 

DCRs. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

replacement of the term ‘‘investment 

protection’’ in section II.E of the AP1000 

DCR and elsewhere in the DCD by the 

term ‘‘non-safety-related severe accident 

equipment.’’ In addition, NEI 

recommends that the AP1000 DCR and 

Supplementary Information be revised 

so that bracketed information in the 

investment protection short-term 

availability controls will be treated like 

bracketed information in generic TS. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

NEI’s request to change this 

terminology. Use of the term 

‘‘investment protection short-term 

availability controls’’ was requested by 

the applicant (Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC) and was also used in 

the AP600 DCR. Furthermore, the origin 

of investment protection short-term 

availability controls comes from 

implementing the regulatory treatment 

of non-safety systems process, which 

typically results in requirements to 

achieve higher reliability for certain 

active, non-safety systems. These 

systems are not limited to severe 

accident design features. Therefore, 

even if the NRC agreed to a generic 

change to the term ‘‘investment 

protection,’’ the proposed term ‘‘nonsafety-related severe accident 

equipment’’ would not be an acceptable 

replacement. 

The NRC agrees that the bracketed 

values in the investment protection 

short-term availability controls have the 

same status as the bracketed values in 

the generic TS. As a result, the NRC 

refers to the availability controls in 

section III.H of the Supplementary 

Information in this Federal Register 

notice. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

that the phrase ‘‘or licensees’’ be deleted 

from the rule language in section 

VIII.C.2 of the AP1000 DCR. 

Response. The NRC agrees with this 

comment and section VIII.C.2 of the 

AP1000 DCR has been amended as 

suggested by NEI. The Commission may 

consider amending the DCRs to adopt 

the language recommended by NEI if 10 

CFR part 52 is revised. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending the rule language in section 

VIII.C.6 of the AP1000 DCR to delete the 

requirement that changes to the plantspecific TS be treated as license 

amendments. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this request. The requirement that 

changes to the plant-specific TS be 

treated as license amendments is 

correct. If the Commission decides to 

clarify this issue for the DCRs in any 

potential revision to 10 CFR part 52, the 

NRC will also clarify the AP1000 DCR 

accordingly as part of that rulemaking. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending the rule language in section 

IX.B.1 of the AP1000 DCR to restore the 

phrase ‘‘based solely thereon.’’

Response. The NRC agrees to amend 

section IX.B.1 of the AP1000 DCR, in 

order to make all of the DCRs consistent. 

However, the NRC notes that inclusion 

of the phrase ‘‘based solely thereon,’’

does not change the meaning of section 

IX.B.1. The determination of inspection, 

test, analysis, and acceptance criteria 

(ITAAC) completion will always be 

based on information that is material to 

the acceptance criteria. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending the rule language in section 

X.A.1 of the AP1000 DCR to require the 

design certification applicant to include 

all generic changes to the generic TS 

and other operational requirements in 

the generic DCD. 

Response. The NRC agrees with this 

comment, section X.A.1 of the AP1000 

DCR has been amended as suggested by 

NEI. The Commission may consider 

amending the DCRs to adopt the 

language recommended by NEI if 10 

CFR part 52 is revised. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

that sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.3 of the 

AP1000 DCR be amended to be 

consistent with respect to inclusion of 

information in the plant-specific DCD or 

explain the difference between the 

terms ‘‘include’’ and ‘‘physically 

include’’ in section IV.A (70 FR 20076). 

Response. The NRC agrees that use of 

the terms ‘‘include’’ and ‘‘physically 

include’’ in section IV.A of the AP1000 

DCR should be clarified. The 

Commission may consider amending all 

of the DCRs to clarify this issue if 10 

CFR part 52 is revised. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending the definition of Tier 2 in 

section II.E.1 of the AP1000 DCR to 

exclude the design-specific PRA and the 

evaluation of SAMDAs. 

Response. The NRC agrees with this 

comment, section II.E.1 of the AP1000 

DCR has been amended as suggested by 

NEI. The NRC notes that NEI submitted 

the same comment during the 2003 

proposed rule to amend 10 CFR part 52. 

The Commission may consider 

amending the DCRs to adopt the 

language recommended by NEI if 10 

CFR part 52 is revised. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending the rule language in section 

III.E of the AP1000 DCR to use the 

terminology for ‘‘site characteristics’’

consistently. 

Response. The NRC agrees with this 

comment, section III.E of the AP1000 

DCR has been amended to be consistent 

with the other DCRs in the proposed 

part 52 rule. The NRC notes that NEI 

submitted the same comment during the 

2003 proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 

part 52. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

clarifying the rule language in section 

IV.A.2 of the AP1000 DCR regarding 

‘‘same’’ information and ‘‘generic DCD.’’

Response. The NRC agrees with this 

comment, section IV.A.2 of the AP1000 

DCR has been amended to be consistent 

with the other DCRs in the proposed 

part 52 rule. The NRC notes that NEI 

submitted the same comment during the 

2003 proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 

part 52. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4467 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending section VIII.B.6.a of the 

AP1000 DCR to be consistent with 

section VI.B.5 regarding plant-specific 

departures. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this request. It was determined during 

the first two DCRs that departures from 

Tier 2* information would not receive 

finality or be treated as a resolved issue 

within the meaning of section VI of the 

DCR. The NRC notes that NEI submitted 

the same comment during the 2003 

proposed rule to amend 10 CFR part 52. 

If the Commission decides to adopt 

NEI’s proposed language for the DCRs in 

any potential revision to 10 CFR part 52, 

the NRC will also amend the AP1000 

DCR accordingly as part of that 

rulemaking. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending section VIII.C.3 of the AP1000 

DCR to require the NRC to meet the 

backfit requirements of 10 CFR 50.109 

in addition to the special circumstances 

in 10 CFR 2.758(b) for plant-specific 

departures from operational 

requirements. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this request. In the first two DCRs, the 

Commission decided on different 

standards for changes made under 

section VIII.C of the DCRs (see the 

discussion at 62 FR 25800; May 12, 

1997). The NRC notes that NEI 

submitted the same comment during the 

2003 proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 

part 52. If the Commission decides to 

adopt NEI’s proposed language for the 

DCRs in any potential revision to 10 

CFR part 52, the NRC will also amend 

the AP1000 DCR accordingly as part of 

that rulemaking. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending section VIII.C.4 of the AP1000 

DCR to revise the standards for making 

changes to operational requirements. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this request. In the first two DCRs, the 

Commission decided on different 

standards for changes made under 

section VIII.C of the DCRs (see the 

discussion at 62 FR 25800; May 12, 

1997). In addition, the Commission 

determined that exemptions from 

operational requirements would not 

receive finality or be treated as a 

resolved issue within the meaning of 

section VI of the DCR. The NRC notes 

that NEI submitted the same comment 

during the 2003 proposed rule to amend 

10 CFR part 52. If the Commission 

decides to adopt NEI’s proposed 

language for the DCRs in any potential 

revision to 10 CFR part 52, the NRC will 

also amend the AP1000 DCR 

accordingly as part of that rulemaking. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending section IX.B.1 of the AP1000 

DCR to specify the type of action to be 

performed by the NRC staff regarding 

ITAAC. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this request. Individual DCRs should 

not address the scope of the NRC staff’s 

activities with respect to ITAAC 

verification. This is a generic matter 

that, if it is to be addressed in a 

rulemaking, is more appropriate for 

inclusion in subpart C of part 52 dealing 

generally with combined licenses. 

The NRC notes that NEI submitted the 

same comment during the 2003 

proposed rule to amend 10 CFR part 52. 

If the Commission decides to adopt 

NEI’s proposed language for the DCRs in 

any potential revision to 10 CFR part 52, 

the NRC will also amend the AP1000 

DCR accordingly as part of that 

rulemaking. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending section IX.B.3 of the AP1000 

DCR to clarify the rule language. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this editorial request and has decided to 

maintain the original rule language for 

this provision. The NRC notes that NEI 

submitted the same comment during the 

2003 proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 

part 52. If the Commission decides to 

adopt NEI’s proposed language for the 

DCRs in any potential revision to 10 

CFR part 52, the NRC will also amend 

the AP1000 DCR accordingly as part of 

that rulemaking. 

Comment Summary. NEI recommends 

amending sections X.B.1 and X.B.3 of 

the AP1000 DCR to clarify the rule 

language regarding DCDs. 

Response. The NRC agrees with this 

comment and section X.B of the AP1000 

DCR has been amended to clarify the 

language. The NRC notes that NEI 

submitted the same comment during the 

2003 proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 

part 52. The Commission may consider 

amending the existing DCRs in any 

potential revision to 10 CFR part 52. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion sets forth 

the purpose and key aspects of each 

section and paragraph of the final 

AP1000 DCR. All section and paragraph 

references are to the provisions in 

appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The final 

DCR for the AP1000 standard plant 

design is nearly identical to the AP600 

DCR, which the NRC previously 

codified in 10 CFR part 52, appendix C 

(Design Certification Rule for the AP600 

Design, 64 FR 72015, December 23, 

1999). Many of the procedural issues 

and their resolutions for the AP600 

DCR, as well as the initial two DCRs for 

the ABWR and ABB–CE System 80+, 

(e.g., the two-tier structure, Tier 2*, the 

scope of issue resolution) were 

developed after extensive public 

discussions with stakeholders, 

including Westinghouse. Also, 

Westinghouse requested that policy 

resolutions for the AP600 design review 

be applied to the AP1000. Accordingly, 

the NRC has modeled the AP1000 DCR 

on the existing DCRs, with certain 

departures where necessary, to account 

for differences in the AP1000 design 

documentation, design features, and 

environmental assessment (including 

severe accident mitigation design 

alternatives (SAMDAs). 

A. Introduction 

The purpose of section I of appendix 

D to 10 CFR part 52 (this appendix) is 

to identify the standard plant design 

that is approved by this DCR, and the 

applicant for certification of the 

standard design. Identification of the 

design certification applicant is 

necessary to implement this appendix, 

for two reasons. First, the 

implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) 

depends on whether an applicant for a 

COL contracts with the design 

certification applicant to provide the 

generic DCD and supporting design 

information. If the COL applicant does 

not use the design certification 

applicant to provide this information, 

then the COL applicant must meet the 

requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(c). Also, 

paragraph X.A.1 of this appendix 

requires the design certification 

applicant to maintain the generic DCD 

throughout the time this appendix may 

be referenced. 

B. Definitions 

During development of the first two 

DCRs, the Commission decided that 

there would be both generic (master) 

DCDs maintained by the NRC and the 

design certification applicant, as well as 

individual plant-specific DCDs 

maintained by each applicant and 

licensee that reference this appendix. 

This distinction is necessary in order to 

specify the relevant plant-specific 

requirements to applicants and 

licensees referencing the appendix. The 

master DCDs would include generic 

changes to the version of the DCD 

approved in this design certification 

rulemaking. These changes would occur 

as the result of generic rulemaking by 

the Commission, under the change 

criteria in section VIII of this appendix. 

The Commission also requires each 

applicant and licensee referencing this 

appendix to submit and maintain a 

plant-specific DCD. 

This plant-specific DCD would 

contain (not just incorporate by 

reference) the information in the generic 

DCD. The plant-specific DCD would be 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4468 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

updated as necessary to reflect the 

generic changes to the DCD that the 

Commission may adopt through 

rulemaking, plant-specific departures 

from the generic DCD that the 

Commission imposed on the licensee by 

order, and any plant-specific departures 

that the licensee chooses to make in 

accordance with the relevant processes 

in section VIII of this appendix. Thus, 

the plant-specific DCD would function 

like an updated FSAR because it would 

provide the most complete and accurate 

information on a plant’s licensing basis 

for that part of the plant within the 

scope of this appendix. Therefore, this 

appendix would define both a generic 

DCD and a plant-specific DCD. 

Also, the Commission decided to treat 

the TS in section 16.1 of the generic 

DCD as a special category of information 

and to designate them as generic TS in 

order to facilitate the special treatment 

of this information under this appendix. 

A COL applicant must submit plantspecific TS that consist of the generic 

TS, which may be modified under 

paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and 

the remaining plant-specific information 

needed to complete the TS. The FSAR 

that is required by 10 CFR 52.79(b) will 

consist of the plant-specific DCD, the 

site-specific portion of the FSAR, and 

the plant-specific TS. 

The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and 

COL action items (license information) 

are defined in this appendix because 

these concepts were not envisioned 

when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. 

The design certification applicants and 

the NRC used these terms in 

implementing the two-tiered rule 

structure that was proposed by 

representatives of the nuclear industry 

after issuance of 10 CFR part 52. 

Therefore, appropriate definitions for 

these additional terms are included in 

this appendix. The nuclear industry 

representatives requested a two-tiered 

structure for the DCRs to achieve issue 

preclusion for a greater amount of 

information than was originally planned 

for the DCRs, while retaining flexibility 

for design implementation. The 

Commission approved the use of a twotiered rule structure in its staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM), 

dated February 14, 1991, on SECY–90–

377, ‘‘Requirements for Design 

Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52,’’

dated November 8, 1990. This document 

and others are available in the 

Regulatory History of Design 

Certification (see section IV, Availability 

of Documents, of this Statement of 

Consideration (SOC)). 

The Tier 1 portion of the designrelated information contained in the 

DCD is certified by this appendix and, 

therefore, is subject to the special 

backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.A of 

this appendix. An applicant who 

references this appendix is required to 

incorporate by reference and comply 

with Tier 1, under paragraphs III.B and 

IV.A.1 of this appendix. This 

information consists of an introduction 

to Tier 1, the system based and nonsystem based design descriptions and 

corresponding ITAAC, significant 

interface requirements, and significant 

site parameters for the design. The 

design descriptions, interface 

requirements, and site parameters in 

Tier 1 were derived from Tier 2, but 

may be more general than the Tier 2 

information. The NRC staff’s evaluation 

of the Tier 1 information is provided in 

section 14.3 of the FSER. Changes to or 

departures from the Tier 1 information 

must comply with section VIII.A of this 

appendix. 

The Tier 1 design descriptions serve 

as commitments for the lifetime of a 

facility referencing the design 

certification. The ITAAC verifies that 

the as-built facility conforms with the 

approved design and applicable 

regulations. Under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the 

Commission must find that the 

acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are 

met before authorizing operation. After 

the Commission has made the finding 

required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the 

ITAAC do not constitute regulatory 

requirements for licensees or for 

renewal of the COL. However, 

subsequent modifications to the facility 

must comply with the design 

descriptions in the plant-specific DCD 

unless changes are made under the 

change process in section VIII of this 

appendix. The Tier 1 interface 

requirements are the most significant of 

the interface requirements for systems 

that are wholly or partially outside the 

scope of the standard design. Tier 1 

interface requirements were submitted 

in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(vii) 

and must be met by the site-specific 

design features of a facility that 

references this appendix. An 

application that references this 

appendix must demonstrate that the site 

parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) are 

met at the proposed site (refer to 

paragraph III.D of this SOC). 

Tier 2 is the portion of the designrelated information contained in the 

DCD that is approved by this appendix 

but not certified. Tier 2 information is 

subject to the backfit provisions in 

paragraph VIII.B of this appendix. Tier 

2 includes the information required by 

10 CFR 52.47 (with the exception of 

generic TS, conceptual design 

information, and the evaluation of 

SAMDAs) and the supporting 

information on inspections, tests, and 

analyses that will be performed to 

demonstrate that the acceptance criteria 

in the ITAAC have been met. As with 

Tier 1, paragraphs III.B and IV.A.1 of 

this appendix require an applicant who 

references this appendix to incorporate 

Tier 2 by reference and to comply with 

Tier 2, except for the COL action items, 

including the investment protection 

short-term availability controls in 

section 16.3 of the generic DCD. The 

definition of Tier 2 makes clear that Tier 

2 information has been determined by 

the Commission, by virtue of its 

inclusion in this appendix and its 

designation as Tier 2 information, to be 

an approved sufficient method for 

meeting Tier 1 requirements. However, 

there may be other acceptable ways of 

complying with Tier 1. The appropriate 

criteria for departing from Tier 2 

information are specified in paragraph 

VIII.B of this appendix. Departures from 

Tier 2 do not negate the requirement in 

paragraph III.B to reference Tier 2. 

A definition of ‘‘combined license 

action items’’ (COL information), which 

is part of the Tier 2 information, has 

been added to clarify that COL 

applicants who reference this appendix 

are required to address COL action 

items in their license application. 

However, the COL action items are not 

the only acceptable set of information. 

An applicant may depart from or omit 

COL action items, provided that the 

departure or omission is identified and 

justified in the FSAR. After issuance of 

a construction permit or COL, these 

items are not requirements for the 

licensee unless they are restated in the 

FSAR. For additional discussion, see 

Section D. 

The investment protection short-term 

availability controls, which are set forth 

in section 16.3 of the generic DCD, were 

added to the information that is part of 

Tier 2 to make it clear that the 

availability controls are not operational 

requirements for the purposes of 

paragraph VIII.C of this appendix. 

Rather, the availability controls are 

associated with specific design features. 

The availability controls may be 

changed if the associated design feature 

is changed under paragraph VIII.B of 

this appendix. For additional 

discussion, see section III.C of this SOC. 

Certain Tier 2 information has been 

designated in the generic DCD with 

brackets and italicized text as ‘‘Tier 2*’’

information and, as discussed in greater 

detail in the section-by-section 

explanation for section H, a plantspecific departure from Tier 2* 

information requires prior NRC 

approval. However, the Tier 2* 

designation expires for some of this 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4469 

information when the facility first 

achieves full power after the finding 

required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). The 

process for changing Tier 2* 

information and the time at which its 

status as Tier 2* expires is set forth in 

paragraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. 

Some Tier 2* requirements concerning 

special pre-operational tests are 

designated to be performed only for the 

first plant or first three plants 

referencing the AP1000 DCR. The Tier 

2* designation for these selected tests 

will expire after the first plant or first 

three plants complete the specified 

tests. However, a COL action item 

requires that subsequent plants also 

perform the tests or justify that the 

results of the first-plant-only or firstthree-plants-only tests are applicable to 

the subsequent plant. 

In an earlier rulemaking (64 FR 53582; 

October 4, 1999), the Commission 

revised 10 CFR 50.59 to incorporate new 

thresholds for permitting changes to a 

plant as described in the FSAR without 

NRC approval. For consistency and 

clarity, the Commission proposes to use 

these new thresholds in the proposed 

AP1000 DCR. Inasmuch as § 50.59 is the 

primary change mechanism for 

operating nuclear plants, the 

Commission believes that future plants 

referencing the AP1000 DCR should 

utilize thresholds as close to § 50.59 as 

is practicable and appropriate. Because 

of some differences in how the change 

control requirements are structured in 

the DCRs, certain definitions contained 

in § 50.59 are not applicable to 10 CFR 

part 52 and are not being included in 

this rule. One definition that the 

Commission is including is the 

definition from the new § 50.59 for a 

‘‘departure from a method of 

evaluation,’’ (paragraph II.G), which is 

appropriate to include in this 

rulemaking so that the eight criteria in 

paragraph VIII.B.5.b of the final rule 

will be implemented as intended. 

C. Scope and Contents 

The purpose of section III of this 

appendix is to describe and define the 

scope and contents of this design 

certification and to set forth how 

documentation discrepancies or 

inconsistencies are to be resolved. 

Paragraph III.A is the required statement 

of the Office of the Federal Register 

(OFR) for approval of the incorporation 

by reference of Tier 1, Tier 2, and the 

generic TS into this appendix. 

Paragraph III.B requires COL applicants 

and licensees to comply with the 

requirements of this appendix. The legal 

effect of incorporation by reference is 

that the incorporated material has the 

same legal status as if it were published 

in the Code of Federal Regulations. This 

material, like any other properly-issued 

regulation, has the force and effect of 

law. Tier 1 and Tier 2 information, as 

well as the generic TS, have been 

combined into a single document called 

the generic DCD, in order to effectively 

control this information and facilitate its 

incorporation by reference into the rule. 

The generic DCD was prepared to meet 

the requirements of the OFR for 

incorporation by reference (1 CFR part 

51). One of the requirements of the OFR 

for incorporation by reference is that the 

design certification applicant must 

make the generic DCD available upon 

request after the final rule becomes 

effective. Therefore, paragraph III.A of 

this appendix identifies a Westinghouse 

representative to be contacted in order 

to obtain a copy of the generic DCD. 

Paragraphs III.A and III.B also identify 

the investment protection short-term 

availability controls in section 16.3 of 

the generic DCD as part of the Tier 2 

information. During its review of the 

AP1000 design, the NRC determined 

that residual uncertainties associated 

with passive safety system performance 

increased the importance of non-safetyrelated active systems in providing 

defense-in-depth functions that back-up 

the passive systems. As a result, 

Westinghouse developed administrative 

controls to provide a high level of 

confidence that active systems having a 

significant safety role are available 

when challenged. Westinghouse named 

these additional controls ‘‘investment 

protection short-term availability 

controls.’’ The Commission included 

this characterization in section III of this 

appendix to ensure that these 

availability controls are binding on 

applicants and licensees that reference 

this appendix and will be enforceable 

by the NRC. The NRC’s evaluation of the 

availability controls is provided in 

Chapter 22 of the FSER. 

The generic DCD (master copy) for 

this design certification will be 

electronically accessible in NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) and at 

the OFR. Copies of the generic DCD will 

also be available at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR). Questions 

concerning the accuracy of information 

in an application that references this 

appendix will be resolved by checking 

the master copy of the generic DCD in 

ADAMS. If a generic change 

(rulemaking) is made to the DCD by the 

change process provided in section VIII 

of this appendix, then at the completion 

of the rulemaking the NRC would 

request approval of the Director, OFR, 

for the changed incorporation by 

reference and change its copies of the 

generic DCD and notify the OFR and the 

design certification applicant to change 

their copies. The Commission is 

requiring that the design certification 

applicant maintain an up-to-date copy 

under paragraph X.A.1 of this appendix 

because it is likely that most applicants 

intending to reference the standard 

design will obtain the generic DCD from 

the design certification applicant. Plantspecific changes to and departures from 

the generic DCD will be maintained by 

the applicant or licensee that references 

this appendix in a plant-specific DCD 

under paragraph X.A.2 of this appendix. 

In addition to requiring compliance 

with this appendix, paragraph III.B 

clarifies that the conceptual design 

information and Westinghouse’s 

evaluation of SAMDAs are not 

considered to be part of this appendix. 

The conceptual design information is 

for those portions of the plant that are 

outside the scope of the standard design 

and are contained in Tier 2 information. 

As provided by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(ix), 

these conceptual designs are not part of 

this appendix and, therefore, are not 

applicable to an application that 

references this appendix. Therefore, the 

applicant is not required to conform 

with the conceptual design information 

that was provided by the design 

certification applicant. The conceptual 

design information, which consists of 

site-specific design features, was 

required to facilitate the design 

certification review. Conceptual design 

information is neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2. 

Section 1.8 of Tier 2 identifies the 

location of the conceptual design 

information. Westinghouse’s evaluation 

of various design alternatives to prevent 

and mitigate severe accidents does not 

constitute design requirements. The 

Commission’s assessment of this 

information is discussed in Section VII 

of this SOC on environmental impacts. 

Paragraphs III.C and III.D set forth the 

way potential conflicts are to be 

resolved. Paragraph III.C establishes the 

Tier 1 description in the DCD as 

controlling in the event of an 

inconsistency between the Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 information in the DCD. 

Paragraph III.D establishes the generic 

DCD as the controlling document in the 

event of an inconsistency between the 

DCD and the FSER for the certified 

standard design. 

Paragraph III.E makes it clear that 

design activities that are wholly outside 

the scope of this design certification 

may be performed using site-specific 

design parameters, provided the design 

activities do not affect Tier 1 or Tier 2, 

or conflict with the interface 

requirements in the DCD. This provision 

applies to site-specific portions of the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4470 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

plant, such as the administration 

building. Because this statement is not 

a definition, this provision has been 

located in Section III of this appendix. 

D. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions 

Section IV of this appendix sets forth 

additional requirements and restrictions 

imposed upon an applicant who 

references this appendix. Paragraph 

IV.A sets forth the information 

requirements for these applicants. This 

paragraph distinguishes between 

information and/or documents which 

must actually be included in the 

application or the DCD, versus those 

which may be incorporated by reference 

(i.e., referenced in the application as if 

the information or documents were 

included in the application). Any 

incorporation by reference in the 

application should be clear and should 

specify the title, date, edition, or version 

of a document, the page number(s), and 

table(s) containing the relevant 

information to be incorporated. 

Paragraph IV.A.1 requires an 

applicant who references this appendix 

to incorporate by reference this 

appendix in its application. The legal 

effect of such an incorporation by 

reference is that this appendix is legally 

binding on the applicant or licensee. 

Paragraph IV.A.2.a requires that a plantspecific DCD be included in the initial 

application to ensure that the applicant 

commits to complying with the DCD. 

This paragraph also requires the plantspecific DCD to use the same format as 

the generic DCD and reflect the 

applicant’s proposed departures and 

exemptions from the generic DCD as of 

the time of submission of the 

application. The Commission expects 

that the plant-specific DCD will become 

the plant’s FSAR, by including 

information, i.e., site-specific 

information, for the portions of the plant 

outside the scope of the referenced 

design, including related ITAAC, and 

other matters required to be included in 

an FSAR by 10 CFR 50.34 and 52.79. 

Integration of the plant-specific DCD 

and remaining site-specific information 

into the plant’s FSAR, will result in an 

application that is easier to use and 

should minimize ‘‘duplicate 

documentation’’ and the attendant 

possibility for confusion. Paragraph 

IV.A.2.a also requires that the initial 

application include the reports on 

departures and exemptions as of the 

time of submission of the application. 

Paragraph IV.A.2.b requires that an 

application referencing this appendix 

include the reports required by 

paragraph X.B of this appendix for 

exemptions and departures proposed by 

the applicant as of the date of 

submission of its application. Paragraph 

IV.A.2.c requires submission of plantspecific TS for the plant that consists of 

the generic TS from section 16.1 of the 

DCD, with any changes made under 

paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and 

the TS for the site-specific portions of 

the plant that are either partially or 

wholly outside the scope of this design 

certification. The applicant must also 

provide the plant-specific information 

designated in the generic TS, such as 

bracketed values. 

Paragraph IV.A.2.d requires the 

applicant referencing this appendix to 

provide information demonstrating that 

the proposed site falls within the site 

parameters for this appendix and that 

the plant-specific design complies with 

the interface requirements, as required 

by 10 CFR 52.79(b). If the proposed site 

has a characteristic that exceeds one or 

more of the site parameters in the DCD, 

then the proposed site is unacceptable 

for this design unless the applicant 

seeks an exemption under section VIII 

of this appendix and provides adequate 

justification for locating the certified 

design on the proposed site. Paragraph 

IV.A.2.e requires submission of 

information addressing COL action 

items, identified in the generic DCD as 

COL information in the application. The 

COL information identifies matters that 

need to be addressed by an applicant 

who references this appendix, as 

required by subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. 

An applicant may depart from or omit 

these items, provided that the departure 

or omission is identified and justified in 

its application (FSAR). Paragraph 

IV.A.2.f requires that the application 

include the information specified by 10 

CFR 52.47(a) that is not within the 

scope of this rule, such as generic issues 

that must be addressed, in whole or in 

part, by an applicant that references this 

rule. Paragraph IV.A.3 requires the 

applicant to physically include, not 

simply reference, the proprietary and 

safeguards information referenced in the 

DCD, or its equivalent, to ensure that the 

applicant has actual notice of these 

requirements. 

Paragraph IV.B reserves to the 

Commission the right to determine in 

what manner this DCR may be 

referenced by an applicant for a 

construction permit or operating license 

under 10 CFR part 50. This 

determination may occur in the context 

of a subsequent rulemaking modifying 

10 CFR part 52 or this design 

certification rule, or on a case-by-case 

basis in the context of a specific 

application for a 10 CFR part 50 

construction permit or operating 

license. This provision is necessary 

because the previous DCRs were not 

implemented in the manner that was 

originally envisioned at the time that 10 

CFR part 52 was promulgated. The 

Commission’s concern is with the way 

ITAAC were developed and the lack of 

experience with design certifications in 

license proceedings. Therefore, it is 

appropriate that the Commission retain 

some discretion regarding the way this 

appendix could be referenced in a 10 

CFR part 50 licensing proceeding. 

E. Applicable Regulations 

The purpose of section V of this 

appendix is to specify the regulations 

that were applicable and in effect at the 

time this design certification was 

approved. These regulations consist of 

the technically relevant regulations 

identified in paragraph V.A, except for 

the regulations in paragraph V.B that are 

not applicable to this certified design. 

Paragraph V.A identifies the 

regulations in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 73, 

and 100 that are applicable to the 

AP1000 design. After the NRC staff 

issued its FSER for the AP1000 design 

(NUREG–1793, September 2004), the 

Commission amended several existing 

regulations and adopted new 

regulations. The Commission reviewed 

these regulations to determine if they 

are applicable to this design and, if so, 

to determine if the design meets these 

regulations. The Commission finds that 

none of these new regulations are 

applicable to the AP1000 design. The 

Commission’s determination of the 

applicable regulations was made as of 

the date specified in paragraph V.A of 

this appendix, which is the date that 

this appendix was approved by the 

Commission and signed by the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

In paragraph V.B of this appendix, the 

Commission identifies the regulations 

that do not apply to the AP1000 design. 

The Commission has determined that 

the AP1000 design should be exempt 

from portions of 10 CFR 50.34, 50.62, 

and Appendix A to part 50, as described 

in the FSER (NUREG–1793) and 

summarized below: 

(1) Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 

50.34—Plant Safety Parameter Display 

Console. Under 10 CFR 52.47(a)(ii), an 

applicant for design certification must 

demonstrate compliance with any 

technically relevant Three Mile Island 

(TMI) requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(f). 

The requirement in 10 CFR 

50.34(f)(2)(iv) states that an application 

must provide a plant safety parameter 

display console that will display a 

minimum set of parameters defining the 

safety status of the plant, be capable of 

displaying a full range of important 

plant parameters and data trends on 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4471 

demand, and be capable of indicating 

when process limits are being 

approached or exceeded. Westinghouse 

addresses this requirement, in section 

18.8.2 of the DCD, with an integrated 

design rather than a stand-alone, add-on 

system, as is used at most current 

operating plants. Specifically, 

Westinghouse integrated the safety 

parameter display system (SPDS) 

requirements into the design 

requirements for the alarm and display 

systems. The NRC staff has determined 

that the function of a separate SPDS 

may be integrated into the overall 

control room design. Therefore, the 

Commission has determined that the 

special circumstances for allowing an 

exemption as described in 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist because the 

requirement for an SPDS console need 

not be applied in this particular 

circumstance to achieve the underlying 

purpose because Westinghouse has 

provided an acceptable alternative that 

accomplishes the intent of the 

regulation. On this basis, the 

Commission concludes that an 

exemption from the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv) is authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to public 

health and safety, and is consistent with 

the common defense and security. 

(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62—

Auxiliary Feedwater System. The 

AP1000 design relies on the passive 

residual heat removal system (PRHR) in 

lieu of an auxiliary or emergency 

feedwater system as its safety-related 

method of removing decay heat. 

Westinghouse requested an exemption 

from a portion of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1), 

which requires auxiliary or emergency 

feedwater as an alternate system for 

decay heat removal during an 

anticipated transient without scram 

(ATWS) event. The NRC staff concluded 

that Westinghouse met the intent of the 

rule by relying on the PRHR system to 

remove the decay heat and, thereby, met 

the underlying purpose of the rule. 

Therefore, the Commission has 

determined that the special 

circumstances for allowing an 

exemption described in 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist because the 

requirement for an auxiliary or 

emergency feedwater system is not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1). This is 

because Westinghouse has adopted 

acceptable alternatives that accomplish 

the intent of this regulation, and the 

exemption is authorized by law, will not 

present an undue risk to public health 

and safety, and is consistent with the 

common defense and security. 

(3) Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, 

GDC 17—Second Offsite Power Supply 

Circuit. Westinghouse requested a 

partial exemption from the requirement 

in General Design Criteria (GDC) 17 for 

a second offsite power supply circuit. 

The AP1000 plant design supports an 

exemption to this requirement by 

providing safety-related ‘‘passive’’

systems. These passive safety-related 

systems only require electric power for 

valves and the related instrumentation. 

The onsite Class 1E batteries and 

associated dc and ac distribution 

systems can provide the power for these 

valves and instrumentation. In addition, 

if no offsite power is available, it is 

expected that the non-safety-related 

onsite diesel generators would be 

available for important plant functions. 

However, this non-safety-related ac 

power is not relied on to maintain core 

cooling or containment integrity. 

Therefore, the Commission has 

determined that the special 

circumstances for allowing an 

exemption as described in 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist because the 

requirement need not be applied in this 

particular circumstance to achieve the 

underlying purpose of having two 

offsite power sources. This is because 

the AP1000 design includes an 

acceptable alternative approach to 

accomplish safety functions that do not 

rely on power from the offsite system 

and, therefore, accomplishes the intent 

of the regulation. On this basis, the 

Commission concludes that a partial 

exemption from the requirements of 

GDC 17 is authorized by law, will not 

present an undue risk to public health 

and safety, and is consistent with the 

common defense and security. 

F. Issue Resolution 

The purpose of section VI of this 

appendix is to identify the scope of 

issues that are resolved by the 

Commission in this rulemaking and; 

therefore, are ‘‘matters resolved’’ within 

the meaning and intent of 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(4). The section is divided into 

five parts: (A) The Commission’s safety 

findings in adopting this appendix, (B) 

the scope and nature of issues which are 

resolved by this rulemaking, (C) issues 

which are not resolved by this 

rulemaking, (D) the backfit restrictions 

applicable to the Commission with 

respect to this appendix, and (E) the 

availability of secondary references. 

Paragraph VI.A describes the nature of 

the Commission’s findings in general 

terms and makes the finding required by 

10 CFR 52.54 for the Commission’s 

approval of this DCR. Furthermore, 

paragraph VI.A explicitly states the 

Commission’s determination that this 

design provides adequate protection of 

the public health and safety. 

Paragraph VI.B sets forth the scope of 

issues that may not be challenged as a 

matter of right in subsequent 

proceedings. The introductory phrase of 

paragraph VI.B clarifies that issue 

resolution as described in the remainder 

of the paragraph extends to the 

delineated NRC proceedings referencing 

this appendix. The remainder of 

paragraph VI.B describes the categories 

of information for which there is issue 

resolution. Specifically, paragraph 

VI.B.1 provides that all nuclear safety 

issues arising from the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended, that are 

associated with the information in the 

NRC staff’s FSER (NUREG–1793) and 

Supplement No. 1, the Tier 1 and Tier 

2 information (including the availability 

controls in Section 16.3 of the generic 

DCD), and the rulemaking record for 

this appendix are resolved within the 

meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). These 

issues include the information 

referenced in the DCD that are 

requirements (i.e., ‘‘secondary 

references’’), as well as all issues arising 

from proprietary and safeguards 

information which are intended to be 

requirements. 

Paragraph VI.B.2 provides for issue 

preclusion of proprietary and safeguards 

information. Paragraphs VI.B.3, VI.B.4, 

VI.B.5, and VI.B.6 clarify that approved 

changes to and departures from the DCD 

which are accomplished in compliance 

with the relevant procedures and 

criteria in section VIII of this appendix 

continue to be matters resolved in 

connection with this rulemaking. 

Paragraphs VI.B.4, VI.B.5, and VI.B.6, 

which characterize the scope of issue 

resolution in three situations, use the 

phrase ‘‘but only for that plant.’’

Paragraph VI.B.4 describes how issues 

associated with a design certification 

rule are resolved when an exemption 

has been granted for a plant referencing 

the design certification rule. Paragraph 

VI.B.5 describes how issues are resolved 

when a plant referencing the design 

certification rule obtains a license 

amendment for a departure from Tier 2 

information. 

Paragraph VI.B.6 describes how issues 

are resolved when the applicant or 

licensee departs from the Tier 2 

information on the basis of paragraph 

VIII.B.5, which will waive the 

requirement for NRC approval. In all 

three situations, after a matter (e.g., an 

exemption in the case of paragraph 

VI.B.4) is addressed for a specific plant 

referencing a design certification rule, 

the adequacy of that matter for that 

plant will not ordinarily be subject to 

challenge in any subsequent proceeding 

or action for that plant (e.g., an 

enforcement action) listed in the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4472 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

introductory portion of paragraph IV.B. 

There will not, by contrast, be any issue 

resolution on that subject matter for any 

other plant. 

Paragraph VI.B.7 provides that, for 

those plants located on sites whose site 

parameters do not exceed those 

assumed in Westinghouse’s evaluation 

of SAMDAs, all issues with respect to 

SAMDAs arising under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), associated with the 

information in the environmental 

assessment for this design and the 

information regarding SAMDAs in 

Appendix 1B of the generic DCD are 

also resolved within the meaning and 

intent of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). If an 

exemption from a site parameter is 

granted, the exemption applicant has 

the initial burden of demonstrating that 

the original SAMDA analysis still 

applies to the actual site parameters but; 

if the exemption is approved, requests 

for litigation at the COL stage must meet 

the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309 and 

present sufficient information to create 

a genuine controversy in order to obtain 

a hearing on the site parameter 

exemption. 

Paragraph VI.C reserves the right of 

the Commission to impose operational 

requirements on applicants that 

reference this appendix. This provision 

reflects the fact that operational 

requirements, including generic TS in 

section 16.1 of the DCD, were not 

completely or comprehensively 

reviewed at the design certification 

stage. Therefore, the special backfit 

provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 do not apply 

to operational requirements. However, 

all design changes will be controlled by 

the appropriate provision in section VIII 

of this appendix. Although the 

information in the DCD that is related to 

operational requirements is necessary to 

support the NRC’s safety review of this 

design, the review of this information 

was not sufficient to conclude that the 

operational requirements are fully 

resolved and ready to be assigned 

finality under 10 CFR 52.63. As a result, 

if the NRC wanted to change a 

temperature limit and that operational 

change required a consequential change 

to a design feature, then the temperature 

limit backfit would be controlled by 

paragraph VIII.A or VIII.B of this 

appendix. However, changes to other 

operational requirements, such as 

inservice testing and inservice 

inspection programs, post-fuel load 

verification activities, and requirements 

governing shutdown risk that do not 

require a design change would not be 

restricted by 10 CFR 52.63 (see 

paragraph VIII.C of this appendix). 

Paragraph VI.C allows the NRC to 

impose future operational requirements 

(distinct from design matters) on 

applicants who reference this design 

certification. Also, license conditions 

for portions of the plant within the 

scope of this design certification, e.g., 

start-up and power ascension testing, 

are not restricted by 10 CFR 52.63. The 

requirement to perform these testing 

programs is contained in Tier 1 

information. However, ITAAC cannot be 

specified for these subjects because the 

matters to be addressed in these license 

conditions cannot be verified prior to 

fuel load and operation, when the 

ITAAC are satisfied. Therefore, another 

regulatory vehicle is necessary to ensure 

that licensees comply with the matters 

contained in the license conditions. 

License conditions for these areas 

cannot be developed now because this 

requires the type of detailed design 

information that will be developed 

during a combined license review. In 

the absence of detailed design 

information to evaluate the need for and 

develop specific post-fuel load 

verifications for these matters, the 

Commission is reserving the right to 

impose license conditions by rule for 

post-fuel load verification activities for 

portions of the plant within the scope of 

this design certification. 

Paragraph VI.D reiterates the 

restrictions (contained in section VIII of 

this appendix) placed upon the 

Commission when ordering generic or 

plant-specific modifications, changes or 

additions to structures, systems, or 

components, design features, design 

criteria, and ITAAC (paragraph VI.D.3 

would address ITAAC) within the scope 

of the certified design. 

Paragraph VI.E provides the 

procedure for an interested member of 

the public to obtain access to 

proprietary or safeguards information 

for the AP1000 design, in order to 

request and participate in proceedings 

identified in paragraph VI.B of this 

appendix, viz., proceedings involving 

licenses and applications which 

reference this appendix. Paragraph VI.E 

specifies that access must first be sought 

from the design certification applicant. 

If Westinghouse refuses to provide the 

information, the person seeking access 

shall request access from the 

Commission or the presiding officer, as 

applicable. Access to the proprietary or 

safeguards information may be ordered 

by the Commission, but must be subject 

to an appropriate non-disclosure 

agreement. 

G. Duration of This Appendix 

The purpose of section VII of this 

appendix is in part, to specify the 

period during which this design 

certification may be referenced by an 

applicant for a COL, under 10 CFR 

52.55. This section also states that the 

design certification remains valid for an 

applicant or licensee that references the 

design certification until the application 

is withdrawn or the license expires. 

Therefore, if an application references 

this design certification during the 15- 

year period, then the design certification 

will be effective until the application is 

withdrawn or the license issued on that 

application expires. Also, the design 

certification will be effective for the 

referencing licensee if the license is 

renewed. The Commission intends for 

this appendix to remain valid for the life 

of the plant that references the design 

certification to achieve the benefits of 

standardization and licensing stability. 

This means that changes to, or plantspecific departures from, information in 

the plant-specific DCD must be made 

under the change processes in section 

VIII of this appendix for the life of the 

plant. 

H. Processes for Changes and 

Departures 

The purpose of section VIII of this 

appendix is to set forth the processes for 

generic changes to or plant-specific 

departures (including exemptions) from 

the DCD. The Commission adopted this 

restrictive change process in order to 

achieve a more stable licensing process 

for applicants and licensees that 

reference this DCR. Section VIII is 

divided into three paragraphs, which 

correspond to Tier 1, Tier 2, and 

operational requirements. The language 

of section VIII of this appendix 

distinguishes between generic changes 

to the DCD versus plant-specific 

departures from the DCD. Generic 

changes must be accomplished by 

rulemaking because the intended 

subject of the change is this DCR itself, 

as is contemplated by 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). Consistent with 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(2), any generic rulemaking 

changes are applicable to all plants, 

absent circumstances which render the 

change [‘‘modification’’ in the language 

of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(2)] ‘‘technically 

irrelevant.’’ By contrast, plant-specific 

departures could be either a 

Commission-issued order to one or more 

applicants or licensees; or an applicant 

or licensee-initiated departure 

applicable only to that applicant’s or 

licensee’s plant(s), similar to a 10 CFR 

50.59 departure or an exemption. 

Because these plant-specific departures 

will result in a DCD that is unique for 

that plant, section X of this appendix 

requires an applicant or licensee to 

maintain a plant-specific DCD. For 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4473 

purposes of brevity, this discussion 

refers to both generic changes and plantspecific departures as ‘‘change 

processes.’’

Section VIII of this appendix refers to 

an exemption from one or more 

requirements of this appendix and the 

criteria for granting an exemption. The 

Commission cautions that when the 

exemption involves an underlying 

substantive requirement (applicable 

regulation), then the applicant or 

licensee requesting the exemption must 

also show that an exemption from the 

underlying applicable requirement 

meets the criteria of 10 CFR 50.12. 

Tier 1 information 

The change processes for Tier 1 

information are covered in paragraph 

VIII.A. Generic changes to Tier 1 are 

accomplished by rulemakings that 

amend the generic DCD and are 

governed by the standards in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). This provision provides that 

the Commission may not modify, 

change, rescind, or impose new 

requirements by rulemaking except 

when necessary either to bring the 

certification into compliance with the 

Commission’s regulations applicable 

and in effect at the time of approval of 

the design certification or to ensure 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security. The rulemakings must provide 

for notice and opportunity for public 

comment on the proposed change, as 

required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). 

Departures from Tier 1 may occur in 

two ways: (1) The Commission may 

order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, 

as provided in paragraph VIII.A.3; or (2) 

an applicant or licensee may request an 

exemption from Tier 1, as provided in 

paragraph VIII.A.4. If the Commission 

seeks to order a licensee to depart from 

Tier 1, paragraph VIII.A.3 requires that 

the Commission find both that the 

departure is necessary for adequate 

protection or for compliance, and that 

special circumstances are present. 

Paragraph VIII.A.4 provides that 

exemptions from Tier 1 requested by an 

applicant or licensee are governed by 

the requirements of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) 

and 52.97(b), which provide an 

opportunity for a hearing. In addition, 

the Commission will not grant requests 

for exemptions that may result in a 

significant decrease in the level of safety 

otherwise provided by the design. 

Tier 2 information 

The change processes for the three 

different categories of Tier 2 

information, namely, Tier 2, Tier 2*, 

and Tier 2* with a time of expiration, 

are set forth in paragraph VIII.B. The 

change process for Tier 2 has the same 

elements as the Tier 1 change process, 

but some of the standards for plantspecific orders and exemptions are 

different. As stated in section III, of this 

SOC, it is the Commission’s intent that 

this appendix emulates Appendix C to 

10 CFR part 52. However, the 

Commission has revised the 10 CFR 

50.59-like change process in paragraph 

VIII.B.5 of this appendix to be 

commensurate with the new 10 CFR 

50.59 (64 FR 53613, October 4, 1999). 

The process for generic Tier 2 changes 

(including changes to Tier 2* and Tier 

2* with a time of expiration) tracks the 

process for generic Tier 1 changes. As 

set forth in paragraph VIII.B.1, generic 

Tier 2 changes are accomplished by 

rulemaking amending the generic DCD 

and are governed by the standards in 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(1). This provision provides 

that the Commission may not modify, 

change, rescind, or impose new 

requirements by rulemaking except 

when necessary, either to bring the 

certification into compliance with the 

Commission’s regulations applicable 

and in effect at the time of approval of 

the design certification or to ensure 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security. If a generic change is made to 

Tier 2* information, then the category 

and expiration, if necessary, of the new 

information would also be determined 

in the rulemaking and the appropriate 

change process for that new information 

would apply. 

Departures from Tier 2 may occur in 

five ways: (1) The Commission may 

order a plant-specific departure, as set 

forth in paragraph VIII.B.3; (2) an 

applicant or licensee may request an 

exemption from a Tier 2 requirement as 

set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4; (3) a 

licensee may make a departure without 

prior NRC approval under paragraph 

VIII.B.5 [similar to the process in 10 

CFR 50.59]; (4) the licensee may request 

NRC approval for proposed departures 

which do not meet the requirements in 

paragraph VIII.B.5 as provided in 

paragraph VIII.B.5.d; and (5) the 

licensee may request NRC approval for 

a departure from Tier 2* information 

under paragraph VIII.B.6. 

Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 

departures and generic Tier 2 changes, 

Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures 

cannot be imposed except when 

necessary either to bring the 

certification into compliance with the 

Commission’s regulations applicable 

and in effect at the time of approval of 

the design certification or to ensure 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security, as set forth in paragraph 

VIII.B.3. However, the special 

circumstances for the Commissionordered Tier 2 departures do not have 

to outweigh any decrease in safety that 

may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the plantspecific order, as required by 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(3). The Commission 

determined that it was not necessary to 

impose an additional limitation similar 

to that imposed on Tier 1 departures by 

10 CFR 52.63(a)(3) and (b)(1). This type 

of additional limitation for 

standardization would unnecessarily 

restrict the flexibility of applicants and 

licensees with respect to Tier 2 

information. 

An applicant or licensee may request 

an exemption from Tier 2 information as 

set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4. The 

applicant or licensee must demonstrate 

that the exemption complies with one of 

the special circumstances in 10 CFR 

50.12(a). In addition, the Commission 

will not grant requests for exemptions 

that may result in a significant decrease 

in the level of safety otherwise provided 

by the design. However, the special 

circumstances for the exemption do not 

have to outweigh any decrease in safety 

that may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the 

exemption. If the exemption is 

requested by an applicant for a license, 

the exemption is subject to litigation in 

the same manner as other issues in the 

license hearing, consistent with 10 CFR 

52.63(b)(1). If the exemption is 

requested by a licensee, then the 

exemption is subject to litigation in the 

same manner as a license amendment. 

Paragraph VIII.B.5 allows an applicant 

or licensee to depart from Tier 2 

information, without prior NRC 

approval, if the proposed departure does 

not involve a change to, or departure 

from, Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, TS, 

or does not require a license amendment 

under paragraphs VIII.B.5.b or 

VIII.B.5.c. The TS referred to in 

VIII.B.5.a of this paragraph are the TS in 

section 16.1 of the generic DCD, 

including bases, for departures made 

prior to issuance of the COL. After 

issuance of the COL, the plant-specific 

TS are controlling under paragraph 

VIII.B.5. The bases for the plant-specific 

TS will be controlled by the bases 

control procedures for the plant-specific 

TS (analogous to the bases control 

provision in the Improved Standard 

Technical Specifications). The 

requirement for a license amendment in 

paragraph VIII.B.5.b will be similar to 

the definition in the new 10 CFR 50.59 

and apply to all information in Tier 2 

except for the information that resolves 

the severe accident issues. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4474 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

The Commission believes that the 

resolution of severe accident issues 

should be preserved and maintained in 

the same fashion as all other safety 

issues that were resolved during the 

design certification review (refer to SRM 

on SECY–90–377). However, because of 

the increased uncertainty in severe 

accident issue resolutions, the 

Commission has adopted separate 

criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.c for 

determining if a departure from 

information that resolves severe 

accident issues would require a license 

amendment. For purposes of applying 

the special criteria in paragraph 

VIII.B.5.c, severe accident resolutions 

are limited to design features where the 

intended function of the design feature 

is relied upon to resolve postulated 

accidents when the reactor core has 

melted and exited the reactor vessel, 

and the containment is being 

challenged. These design features are 

identified in section 1.9.5 and Appendix 

19B of the DCD, with other issues, and 

are described in other sections of the 

DCD. Therefore, the location of design 

information in the DCD is not important 

to the application of this special 

procedure for severe accident issues. 

However, the special procedure in 

paragraph VIII.B.5.c does not apply to 

design features that resolve so-called 

‘‘beyond design-basis accidents’’ or 

other low-probability events. The 

important aspect of this special 

procedure is that it is limited to severe 

accident design features, as defined 

above. Some design features may have 

intended functions to meet ‘‘design 

basis’’ requirements and to resolve 

‘‘severe accidents.’’ If these design 

features are reviewed under paragraph 

VIII.B.5, then the appropriate criteria 

from either paragraphs VIII.B.5.b or 

VIII.B.5.c are selected depending upon 

the function being changed. 

An applicant or licensee that plans to 

depart from Tier 2 information, under 

paragraph VIII.B.5, is required to 

prepare an evaluation which provides 

the bases for the determination that the 

proposed change does not require a 

license amendment or involve a change 

to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a 

change to the TS, as explained above. In 

order to achieve the Commission’s goals 

for design certification, the evaluation 

needs to consider all of the matters that 

were resolved in the DCD, such as 

generic issue resolutions that are 

relevant to the proposed departure. The 

benefits of the early resolution of safety 

issues would be lost if departures from 

the DCD were made that violated these 

resolutions without appropriate review. 

The evaluation of the relevant matters 

needs to consider the proposed 

departure over the full range of power 

operation from startup to shutdown, as 

it relates to anticipated operational 

occurrences, transients, design-basis 

accidents, and severe accidents. The 

evaluation must also include a review of 

all relevant secondary references from 

the DCD because Tier 2 information, 

which is intended to be treated as a 

requirement, is contained in the 

secondary references. The evaluation 

should consider Tables 14.3–1 through 

14.3–8 and 19.59–18 of the generic DCD 

to ensure that the proposed change does 

not impact Tier 1 information. These 

tables contain cross-references from the 

safety analyses and probabilistic risk 

assessment in Tier 2 to the important 

parameters that were included in Tier 1. 

A party to an adjudicatory proceeding 

(e.g., for issuance of a COL) who 

believes that an applicant or licensee 

has not complied with paragraph 

VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2 

information, is permitted to petition to 

admit such a contention into the 

proceeding under paragraph VIII.B.5.f. 

This provision was included because an 

incorrect departure from the 

requirements of this appendix 

essentially places the departure outside 

of the scope of the Commission’s safety 

finding in the design certification 

rulemaking. Therefore, it follows that 

properly founded contentions alleging 

such incorrectly implemented 

departures cannot be considered 

‘‘resolved’’ by this rulemaking. As set 

forth in paragraph VIII.B.5.f, the petition 

must comply with the requirements of 

10 CFR 2.309 and show that the 

departure does not comply with 

paragraph VIII.B.5. Any other party may 

file a response to the petition. If on the 

basis of the petition and any responses, 

the presiding officer in the proceeding 

determines that the required showing 

has been made, the matter shall be 

certified to the Commission for its final 

determination. In the absence of a 

proceeding, petitions alleging 

nonconformance with paragraph 

VIII.B.5 requirements applicable to Tier 

2 departures will be treated as petitions 

for enforcement action under 10 CFR 

2.206. 

Paragraph VIII.B.6 provides a process 

for departing from Tier 2* information. 

The creation of and restrictions on 

changing Tier 2* information resulted 

from the development of the Tier 1 

information for ABWR design 

certification (Appendix A to part 52) 

and the ABB–CE System 80+ design 

certification (Appendix B to part 52). 

During this development process, these 

applicants requested that the amount of 

information in Tier 1 be minimized to 

provide additional flexibility for an 

applicant or licensee who references 

these appendices. Also, many codes, 

standards, and design processes, which 

were not specified in Tier 1 that are 

acceptable for meeting ITAAC, were 

specified in Tier 2. The result of these 

actions is that certain significant 

information only exists in Tier 2 and the 

Commission does not want this 

significant information to be changed 

without prior NRC approval. This Tier 

2* information is identified in the 

generic DCD with italicized text and 

brackets (See Table 1–1 of AP1000 DCD 

Introduction). 

Although the Tier 2* designation was 

originally intended to last for the 

lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 

information, the NRC determined that 

some of the Tier 2* information could 

expire when the plant first achieves full 

(100 percent) power, after the finding 

required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), while 

other Tier 2* information must remain 

in effect throughout the life of the 

facility. The factors determining 

whether Tier 2* information could 

expire after the first full power was 

achieved were whether the Tier 1 

information would govern these areas 

after first full power and the NRC’s 

determination that prior approval was 

required before implementation of the 

change due to the significance of the 

information. Therefore, certain Tier 2* 

information listed in paragraph 

VIII.B.6.c ceases to retain its Tier 2* 

designation after full-power operation is 

first achieved following the Commission 

finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). 

Thereafter, that information is deemed 

to be Tier 2 information that is subject 

to the departure requirements in 

paragraph VIII.B.5. By contrast, the Tier 

2* information identified in paragraph 

VIII.B.6.b retains its Tier 2* designation 

throughout the duration of the license, 

including any period of license renewal. 

Certain preoperational tests in 

paragraph VIII.B.6.c are designated to be 

performed only for the first plant or first 

three plants that reference this 

appendix. Westinghouse’s basis for 

performing these ‘‘first-plant-only’’ and 

‘‘first-three-plants-only’’ preoperational 

tests is provided in section 14.2.5 of the 

DCD. The NRC found Westinghouse’s 

basis for performing these tests and its 

justification for only performing the 

tests on the first plant or first three 

plants acceptable. The NRC’s decision 

was based on the need to verify that 

plant-specific manufacturing and/or 

construction variations do not adversely 

impact the predicted performance of 

certain passive safety systems, while 

recognizing that these special tests will 

result in significant thermal transients 

being applied to critical plant 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4475 

1For discussion of the verification of ITAAC, see 

SECY–00––92, ‘‘Combined License Review 

Process,’’ dated April 20, 2000. 

components. The NRC believes that the 

range of manufacturing or construction 

variations that could adversely affect the 

relevant passive safety systems would 

be adequately disclosed after performing 

the designated tests on the first plant, or 

the first three plants, as applicable. The 

COL action item in section 14.4.6 of the 

DCD states that subsequent plants shall 

either perform these preoperational tests 

or justify that the results of the firstplant-only or first-three-plant-only tests 

are applicable to the subsequent plant. 

The Tier 2* designation for these tests 

will expire after the first plant or first 

three plants complete these tests, as 

indicated in paragraph VIII.B.6.c. 

If Tier 2* information is changed in a 

generic rulemaking, the designation of 

the new information (Tier 1, 2*, or 2) 

would also be determined in the 

rulemaking and the appropriate process 

for future changes would apply. If a 

plant-specific departure is made from 

Tier 2* information, then the new 

designation would apply only to that 

plant. If an applicant who references 

this design certification makes a 

departure from Tier 2* information, the 

new information is subject to litigation 

in the same manner as other plantspecific issues in the licensing hearing. 

If a licensee makes a departure from 

Tier 2* information, it will be treated as 

a license amendment under 10 CFR 

50.90 and the finality will be 

determined under paragraph VI.B.5 of 

this appendix. Any requests for 

departures from Tier 2* information that 

affects Tier 1 must also comply with the 

requirements in paragraph VIII.A of this 

appendix. 

Operational Requirements 

The change process for TS and other 

operational requirements in the DCD is 

set forth in paragraph VIII.C. This 

change process has elements similar to 

the Tier 1 and Tier 2 change process in 

paragraphs VIII.A and VIII.B, but with 

significantly different change standards. 

Because of the different finality status 

for TS and other operational 

requirements (refer to paragraph III.F of 

this SOC), the Commission designated a 

special category of information, 

consisting of the TS and other 

operational requirements, with its own 

change process in proposed paragraph 

VIII.C. The key to using the change 

processes proposed in section VIII is to 

determine if the proposed change or 

departure requires a change to a design 

feature described in the generic DCD. If 

a design change is required, then the 

appropriate change process in paragraph 

VIII.A or VIII.B applies. However, if a 

proposed change to the TS or other 

operational requirements does not 

require a change to a design feature in 

the generic DCD, then paragraph VIII.C 

applies. The language in paragraph 

VIII.C also distinguishes between 

generic (section 16.1 of DCD) and plantspecific TS to account for the different 

treatment and finality accorded TS 

before and after a license is issued. 

The process in paragraph VIII.C.1 for 

making generic changes to the generic 

TS in section 16.1 of the DCD or other 

operational requirements in the generic 

DCD is accomplished by rulemaking 

and governed by the backfit standards in 

10 CFR 50.109. The determination of 

whether the generic TS and other 

operational requirements were 

completely reviewed and approved in 

the design certification rulemaking is 

based upon the extent to which an NRC 

safety conclusion in the FSER is being 

modified or changed. If it cannot be 

determined that the TS or operational 

requirement was comprehensively 

reviewed and finalized in the design 

certification rulemaking, then there is 

no backfit restriction under 10 CFR 

50.109 because no prior position was 

taken on this safety matter. Generic 

changes made under proposed 

paragraph VIII.C.1 are applicable to all 

applicants or licensees (refer to 

paragraph VIII.C.2), unless the change is 

irrelevant because of a plant-specific 

departure. 

Some generic TS and investment 

protection short-term availability 

controls contain values in brackets []. 

The brackets are placeholders indicating 

that the NRC’s review is not complete, 

and represent a requirement that the 

applicant for a combined license 

referencing the AP1000 DCR must 

replace the values in brackets with final 

plant-specific values. The values in 

brackets are neither part of the design 

certification rule nor are they binding. 

Therefore, the replacement of bracketed 

values with final plant-specific values 

does not require an exemption from the 

generic TS or investment protection 

short-term availability controls. 

Plant-specific departures may occur 

by either a Commission order under 

paragraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant’s 

exemption request under paragraph 

VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the 

TS or operational requirement was 

completely reviewed and approved for 

these processes is the same as for 

paragraph VIII.C.1 above. If the TS or 

operational requirement is 

comprehensively reviewed and 

finalized in the design certification 

rulemaking, then the Commission must 

demonstrate that special circumstances 

are present before ordering a plantspecific departure. If not, there is no 

restriction on plant-specific changes to 

the TS or operational requirements, 

prior to the issuance of a license, 

provided a design change is not 

required. Although the generic TS were 

reviewed and approved by the NRC staff 

in support of the design certification 

review, the Commission intends to 

consider the lessons learned from 

subsequent operating experience during 

its licensing review of the plant-specific 

TS. The process for petitioning to 

intervene on a TS or operational 

requirement contained in paragraph 

VIII.C.5 is similar to other issues in a 

licensing hearing, except that the 

petitioner must also demonstrate why 

special circumstances are present. 

Finally, the generic TS will have no 

further effect on the plant-specific TS 

after the issuance of a license that 

references this appendix. The bases for 

the generic TS will be controlled by the 

change process in paragraph VIII.C of 

this appendix. After a license is issued, 

the bases will be controlled by the bases 

change provision set forth in the 

administrative controls section of the 

plant-specific TS. 

I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) 

The purpose of section IX of this 

appendix is to set forth how the ITAAC 

in Tier 1 of this design certification rule 

are to be treated in a license proceeding. 

Paragraph IX.A restates the 

responsibilities of an applicant or 

licensee for performing and successfully 

completing ITAAC, and notifying the 

NRC of such completion. Paragraph 

IX.A.1 clarifies that an applicant may 

proceed at its own risk with design and 

procurement activities subject to 

ITAAC, and that a licensee may proceed 

at its own risk with design, 

procurement, construction, and 

preoperational testing activities subject 

to an ITAAC, even though the NRC may 

not have found that any particular 

ITAAC has been successfully 

completed. Paragraph IX.A.2 requires 

the licensee to notify the NRC that the 

required inspections, tests, and analyses 

in the ITAAC have been completed and 

that the acceptance criteria have been 

met. 

Paragraphs IX.B.1 and IX.B.2 reiterate 

the NRC’s responsibilities with respect 

to ITAAC as set forth in 10 CFR 52.99 

and 52.103(g).1 Finally, paragraph 

IX.B.3 states that ITAAC do not, by 

virtue of their inclusion in the DCD, 

constitute regulatory requirements after 

the licensee has received authorization 

to load fuel or has been granted a 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4476 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

renewal of its license. However, 

subsequent modifications to the terms of 

the COL must comply with the design 

descriptions in the DCD unless the 

applicable requirements in 10 CFR 

52.97 and section VIII of this appendix 

have been met. As discussed in 

paragraph III.D of this SOC, the 

Commission will defer a determination 

of the applicability of ITAAC and its 

effect in terms of issue resolution in 10 

CFR part 50 licensing proceedings until 

a part 50 applicant decides to reference 

this appendix. 

J. Records and Reporting 

The purpose of section X of this 

appendix is to set forth the requirements 

that will apply to maintaining records of 

changes to and departures from the 

generic DCD, which are to be reflected 

in the plant-specific DCD. Section X 

also sets forth the requirements for 

submitting reports (including updates to 

the plant-specific DCD) to the NRC. This 

section of the appendix is similar to the 

requirements for records and reports in 

10 CFR part 50, except for minor 

differences in information collection 

and reporting requirements. 

Paragraph X.A.1 of this appendix 

requires that a generic DCD and the 

proprietary and safeguards information 

referenced in the generic DCD be 

maintained by the applicant for this 

rule. The generic DCD was developed, 

in part, to meet the requirements for 

incorporation by reference, including 

availability requirements. Therefore, the 

proprietary and safeguards information 

could not be included in the generic 

DCD because they are not publicly 

available. However, the proprietary and 

safeguards information was reviewed by 

the NRC and, as stated in paragraph 

VI.B.2 of this appendix, the Commission 

considers the information resolved 

within the meaning of 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(4). Because this information is 

not in the generic DCD, the proprietary 

and safeguards information, or its 

equivalent, is required to be provided by 

an applicant for a license. Therefore, to 

ensure that this information will be 

available, a requirement for the design 

certification applicant to maintain the 

proprietary and safeguards information 

was added to proposed paragraph X.A.1 

of this appendix. The acceptable version 

of the proprietary and safeguards 

information is identified (referenced) in 

the version of the DCD that is 

incorporated into this rule. The generic 

DCD and the acceptable version of the 

proprietary and safeguards information 

must be maintained for the period of 

time that this appendix may be 

referenced. 

Paragraphs X.A.2 and X.A.3 place 

recordkeeping requirements on the 

applicant or licensee that references this 

design certification so that its plantspecific DCD accurately reflects both 

generic changes to the generic DCD and 

plant-specific departures made under 

Section VIII of this appendix. The term 

‘‘plant-specific’’ was added to paragraph 

X.A.2 and other sections of this 

appendix to distinguish between the 

generic DCD that is incorporated by 

reference into this appendix, and the 

plant-specific DCD that the applicant is 

required to submit under paragraph 

IV.A of this appendix. The requirement 

to maintain changes to the generic DCD 

is explicitly stated to ensure that these 

changes are not only reflected in the 

generic DCD, which will be maintained 

by the applicant for design certification, 

but also in the plant-specific DCD. 

Therefore, records of generic changes to 

the DCD will be required to be 

maintained by both entities to ensure 

that both entities have up-to-date DCDs. 

Paragraph X.A of this appendix does 

not place recordkeeping requirements 

on site-specific information that is 

outside the scope of this rule. As 

discussed in paragraph III.D of this SOC, 

the FSAR required by 10 CFR 52.79 will 

contain the plant-specific DCD and the 

site-specific information for a facility 

that references this rule. The phrase 

‘‘site-specific portion of the final safety 

analysis report’’ in paragraph X.B.3.c of 

this appendix refers to the information 

that is contained in the FSAR for a 

facility (required by 10 CFR 52.79) but 

is not part of the plant-specific DCD 

(required by paragraph IV.A of this 

appendix). Therefore, this rule does not 

require that duplicate documentation be 

maintained by an applicant or licensee 

that references this rule, because the 

plant-specific DCD is part of the FSAR 

for the facility. 

Paragraph X.B.1 requires applicants or 

licensees that reference this rule to 

submit reports, which describe 

departures from the DCD and include a 

summary of the written evaluations. The 

requirements for the written evaluations 

are set forth in paragraph X.A.1. The 

frequency of the report submittals is set 

forth in paragraph X.B.3. The 

requirement for submitting a summary 

of the evaluations is similar to the 

requirement in 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2). 

Paragraph X.B.2 requires applicants or 

licensees that reference this rule to 

submit updates to the DCD, which 

include both generic changes and plantspecific departures. The frequency for 

submitting updates is set forth in 

paragraph X.B.3. The requirements in 

paragraph X.B.3 for submitting the 

reports and updates will vary according 

to certain time periods during a 

facility’s lifetime. If a potential 

applicant for a combined license who 

references this rule decides to depart 

from the generic DCD prior to 

submission of the application, then 

paragraph X.B.3.a will require that the 

updated DCD be submitted as part of the 

initial application for a license. Under 

paragraph X.B.3.b, the applicant may 

submit any subsequent updates to its 

plant-specific DCD along with its 

amendments to the application 

provided that the submittals are made at 

least once per year. Because 

amendments to an application are 

typically made more frequently than 

once a year, this should not be an 

excessive burden on the applicant. 

Paragraph X.B.3.b also requires that 

the reports required by paragraph X.B.1 

be submitted semi-annually. This 

increase in reporting frequency during 

the period of construction and 

application review is consistent with 

Commission guidance. Also, more 

frequent reporting of design changes 

during the period of detailed design and 

construction is necessary to closely 

monitor the status and progress of the 

facility. In order to make the finding 

under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the NRC must 

monitor the design changes made under 

proposed section VIII of this appendix. 

Frequent reporting of design changes 

would be particularly important when 

the number of design changes could be 

significant, such as during the 

procurement of components and 

equipment, detailed design of the plant 

before and during construction, and 

during preoperational testing. After the 

facility begins operation, the frequency 

of reporting will revert to the 

requirement in paragraph X.B.3.c, 

which is consistent with the 

requirements for plants licensed under 

10 CFR 50.57. 

IV. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following: 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC’s Public Document Room is located 

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File 

Area O–1 F21, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. Copies of publicly available 

documents related to this rulemaking 

can be viewed electronically on public 

computers in the PDR. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will make 

copies of documents for a fee. 

Rulemaking Web site (Web). The 

NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site 

is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Selected documents may be viewed and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4477 

2The regulatory history of the NRC’s design 

certification reviews is a package of 100 documents 

that is available in NRC’s PERR and in the PDR. 

This history spans a 15-year period during which 

the NRC simultaneously developed the regulatory 

standards for reviewing these designs and the form 

and content of the rules that certified the designs. 

downloaded electronically via this Web 

site. 

Public Electronic Reading Room 

(ADAMS). The NRC’s Public Electronic 

Reading Room (PERR) is located at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. Through this site, the 

public can gain access to ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. 

Document PDR Web ADAMS 

AP1000 Design Control Document, Revision 15 ......................................................................................... X ................ ML053460400 

AP1000 Final Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................... X ................ ML053630176 

AP1000 Final Safety Evaluation Report [NUREG–1793] ............................................................................ X ................ ML043570339 

NUREG–1793, Supplement 1, AP1000 FSER ............................................................................................ X ................ ML053410203 

SECY–05–0227, Final Rule—AP1000 Design Certification ........................................................................ X X ML053250288 

Regulatory History of Design Certification 2 ................................................................................................. X ................ ML003761550 

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Act), 

Public Law 104–113, requires that 

Federal agencies use technical standards 

that are developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies 

unless using such a standard is 

inconsistent with applicable law or is 

otherwise impractical. In this final rule, 

the NRC is approving the AP1000 

standard plant design for use in nuclear 

power plant licensing under 10 CFR 

parts 50 or 52. Design certifications are 

not generic rulemakings establishing a 

generally applicable standard with 

which all parts 50 and 52 nuclear power 

plant licensees must comply. Design 

certifications are Commission approvals 

of specific nuclear power plant designs 

by rulemaking. Furthermore, design 

certifications are initiated by an 

applicant for rulemaking, rather than by 

the NRC. For these reasons, the NRC 

concludes that the Act does not apply 

to this final rule. 

VI. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

The Commission has determined 

under NEPA, and the Commission’s 

regulations in 10 CFR part 51, subpart 

A, that this design certification rule is 

not a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and, therefore, an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is not required. The basis for this 

determination, as documented in the 

environmental assessment (EA), is that 

this amendment to 10 CFR part 52 does 

not authorize the siting, construction, or 

operation of a facility using the AP1000 

design; it only codifies the AP1000 

design in a rule. The NRC will evaluate 

the environmental impacts and issue an 

EIS as appropriate under NEPA as part 

of the application(s) for the construction 

and operation of a facility referencing 

the AP1000 design certification rule. 

In addition, as part of the 

environmental assessment for the 

AP1000 design, the NRC reviewed 

Westinghouse’s evaluation of various 

design alternatives to prevent and 

mitigate severe accidents in Appendix 

1B of the AP1000 DCD Tier 2. Based 

upon review of Westinghouse’s 

evaluation, the Commission finds that: 

(1) Westinghouse identified a 

reasonably complete set of potential 

design alternatives to prevent and 

mitigate severe accidents for the AP1000 

design; (2) none of the potential design 

alternatives are justified on the basis of 

cost-benefit considerations; and (3) it is 

unlikely that other design changes 

would be identified and justified in the 

future on the basis of cost-benefit 

considerations, because the estimated 

core damage frequencies for the AP1000 

are very low on an absolute scale. These 

issues are considered resolved for the 

AP1000 design. 

The EA, upon which the 

Commission’s Finding of No Significant 

Impact is based, and the AP1000 DCD 

are available for examination and 

copying at the NRC Public Document 

Room, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. The NRC sent a copy of the EA 

and proposed rule to every State Liaison 

Officer and no comments were received. 

Single copies of the EA are also 

available from Lauren M. QuinonesNavarro, Mailstop O–4D9A, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This final rule contains new or 

amended information collection 

requirements that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These requirements 

were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget, approval 

number 3150–0151. 

The burden to the public for these 

information collections is estimated to 

average 8 hours per response, including 

the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the information collection. Send 

comments on any aspect of these 

information collections, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services 

Branch (T5 F52), U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, or by Internet 

electronic mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV; and to the 

Desk Officer, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202, 

(3150–0151), Office of Management and 

Budget, Washington, DC 20503. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis 

The NRC has not prepared a 

regulatory analysis for this final rule. 

The NRC prepares regulatory analyses 

for rulemakings that establish generic 

regulatory requirements applicable to all 

licensees. Design certifications are not 

generic rulemakings in the sense that 

design certifications do not establish 

standards or requirements with which 

all licensees must comply. Rather, 

design certifications are Commission 

approvals of specific nuclear power 

plant designs by rulemaking, which 

then may be voluntarily referenced by 

applicants for COLs. Furthermore, 

design certification rulemakings are 

initiated by an applicant for a design 

certification, rather than the NRC. 

Preparation of a regulatory analysis in 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4478 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

3AP1000 is a trademark of Westinghouse Electric 

Company LLC. 

this circumstance would not be useful 

because the design to be certified is 

proposed by the applicant rather than 

the NRC. For these reasons, the 

Commission concludes that preparation 

of a regulatory analysis is neither 

required nor appropriate. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 

Commission certifies that this final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact upon a substantial number of 

small entities. The final rule provides 

for certification of a nuclear power plant 

design. Neither the design certification 

applicant, nor prospective nuclear 

power plant licensees who reference 

this design certification rule, fall within 

the scope of the definition of ‘‘small 

entities’’ set forth in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, or the Small Business 

Size Standards set out in regulations 

issued by the Small Business 

Administration in 13 CFR part 121. 

Thus, this rule does not fall within the 

purview of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

X. Backfit Analysis 

The Commission has determined that 

this final rule does not constitute a 

backfit as defined in the backfit rule (10 

CFR 50.109), because this design 

certification does not impose new or 

changed requirements on existing 10 

CFR part 50 licensees, nor does it 

impose new or change requirements on 

existing DCRs in appendices A–C of part 

52. Therefore, a backfit analysis was not 

prepared for this rule. 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

In accordance with the Congressional 

Review Act of 1996, the NRC has 

determined that this action is not a 

major rule and has verified this 

determination with the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, 

Combined license, Early site permit, 

Emergency planning, Fees, 

Incorporation by reference, Inspection, 

Limited work authorization, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Probabilistic 

risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor 

siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Standard design, Standard design 

certification. 

■ For the reasons set out in this SOC 

and under the authority of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the 

NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR part 52. 

PART 52—EARLY SITE PERMITS; 

STANDARD DESIGN 

CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED 

LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER 

PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 10 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 

186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 

956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 

Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

■ 2. In § 52.8, paragraph (b) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.8 Information collection 

requirements: OMB approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) The approved information 

collection requirements contained in 

this part appear in §§ 52.15, 52.17, 

52.29, 52.35, 52.45, 52.47, 52.51, 52.57, 

52.63, 52.75, 52.77, 52.78, 52.79, 52.89, 

52.91, 52.99, and appendices A, B, C, 

and D to this part. 

■ 3. A new Appendix D to 10 CFR part 

52 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Part 52—Design 

Certification Rule for the AP1000 

Design 

I. Introduction 

Appendix D constitutes the standard 

design certification for the AP1000 3 design, 

in accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart 

B. The applicant for certification of the 

AP1000 design is Westinghouse Electric 

Company LLC. 

II. Definitions 

A. Generic design control document 

(generic DCD) means the document 

containing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information 

and generic technical specifications that is 

incorporated by reference into this appendix. 

B. Generic technical specifications means 

the information required by 10 CFR 50.36 

and 50.36a for the portion of the plant that 

is within the scope of this appendix. 

C. Plant-specific DCD means the document 

maintained by an applicant or licensee who 

references this appendix consisting of the 

information in the generic DCD as modified 

and supplemented by the plant-specific 

departures and exemptions made under 

section VIII of this appendix. 

D. Tier 1 means the portion of the designrelated information contained in the generic 

DCD that is approved and certified by this 

appendix (Tier 1 information). The design 

descriptions, interface requirements, and site 

parameters are derived from Tier 2 

information. Tier 1 information includes: 

1. Definitions and general provisions; 

2. Design descriptions; 

3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and 

acceptance criteria (ITAAC); 

4. Significant site parameters; and 

5. Significant interface requirements. 

E. Tier 2 means the portion of the designrelated information contained in the generic 

DCD that is approved but not certified by this 

appendix (Tier 2 information). Compliance 

with Tier 2 is required, but generic changes 

to and plant-specific departures from Tier 2 

are governed by section VIII of this appendix. 

Compliance with Tier 2 provides a sufficient, 

but not the only acceptable, method for 

complying with Tier 1. Compliance methods 

differing from Tier 2 must satisfy the change 

process in section VIII of this appendix. 

Regardless of these differences, an applicant 

or licensee must meet the requirement in 

paragraph III.B to reference Tier 2 when 

referencing Tier 1. Tier 2 information 

includes: 

1. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47, 

with the exception of generic TS, the designspecific PRA, the evaluation of SAMDAs, and 

conceptual design information; 

2. Information required for a final safety 

analysis report under 10 CFR 50.34; 

3. Supporting information on the 

inspections, tests, and analyses that will be 

performed to demonstrate that the acceptance 

criteria in the ITAAC have been met; and 

4. COL action items (COL information), 

which identify certain matters that shall be 

addressed in the site-specific portion of the 

FSAR by an applicant who references this 

appendix. These items constitute information 

requirements but are not the only acceptable 

set of information in the FSAR. An applicant 

may depart from or omit these items, 

provided that the departure or omission is 

identified and justified in the FSAR. After 

issuance of a construction permit or COL, 

these items are not requirements for the 

licensee unless such items are restated in the 

FSAR. 

5. The investment protection short-term 

availability controls in section 16.3 of the 

DCD. 

F. Tier 2* means the portion of the Tier 2 

information, designated as such in the 

generic DCD, which is subject to the change 

process in paragraph VIII.B.6 of this 

appendix. This designation expires for some 

Tier 2* information under paragraph VIII.B.6. 

G. Departure from a method of evaluation 

described in the plant-specific DCD used in 

establishing the design bases or in the safety 

analyses means: 

1. Changing any of the elements of the 

method described in the plant-specific DCD 

unless the results of the analysis are 

conservative or essentially the same; or 

2. Changing from a method described in 

the plant-specific DCD to another method 

unless that method has been approved by the 

NRC for the intended application. 

H. All other terms in this appendix have 

the meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 

52.3, or section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended, as applicable. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4479 

III. Scope and Contents 

A. Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment 

protection short-term availability controls in 

Section 16.3), and the generic TS in the 

AP1000 DCD (Revision 15, dated December 

8, 2005) are approved for incorporation by 

reference by the Director of the Office of the 

Federal Register on February 27, 2006 under 

5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of 

the generic DCD may be obtained from 

Ronald P. Vijuk, Manager, Passive Plant 

Engineering, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, P.O. Box 355, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15230–0355. A copy of the 

generic DCD is also available for examination 

and copying at the NRC Public Document 

Room, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852. 

Copies are available for examination at the 

NRC Library, Two White Flint North, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 

telephone (301) 415–5610, e-mail 

LIBRARY@NRC.GOV or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

B. An applicant or licensee referencing this 

appendix, in accordance with Section IV of 

this appendix, shall incorporate by reference 

and comply with the requirements of this 

appendix, including Tier 1, Tier 2 (including 

the investment protection short-term 

availability controls in section 16.3 of the 

DCD), and the generic TS except as otherwise 

provided in this appendix. Conceptual 

design information in the generic DCD and 

the evaluation of SAMDAs in appendix 1B of 

the generic DCD are not part of this 

appendix. 

C. If there is a conflict between Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 of the DCD, then Tier 1 controls. 

D. If there is a conflict between the generic 

DCD and either the application for design 

certification of the AP1000 design or 

NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation 

Report Related to Certification of the AP1000 

Standard Design,’’ (FSER) and Supplement 

No. 1, then the generic DCD controls. 

E. Design activities for structures, systems, 

and components that are wholly outside the 

scope of this appendix may be performed 

using site characteristics, provided the design 

activities do not affect the DCD or conflict 

with the interface requirements. 

IV. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions 

A. An applicant for a license that wishes 

to reference this appendix shall, in addition 

to complying with the requirements of 10 

CFR 52.77, 52.78, and 52.79, comply with the 

following requirements: 

1. Incorporate by reference, as part of its 

application, this appendix. 

2. Include, as part of its application: 

a. A plant-specific DCD containing the 

same type of information and using the same 

organization and numbering as the generic 

DCD for the AP1000 design, as modified and 

supplemented by the applicant’s exemptions 

and departures; 

b. The reports on departures from and 

updates to the plant-specific DCD required by 

paragraph X.B of this appendix; 

c. Plant-specific TS, consisting of the 

generic and site-specific TS that are required 

by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a; 

d. Information demonstrating compliance 

with the site parameters and interface 

requirements; 

e. Information that addresses the COL 

action items; and 

f. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) 

that is not within the scope of this appendix. 

3. Physically include, in the plant-specific 

DCD, the proprietary and safeguards 

information referenced in the AP1000 DCD. 

B. The Commission reserves the right to 

determine in what manner this appendix 

may be referenced by an applicant for a 

construction permit or operating license 

under part 50 of this chapter. 

V. Applicable Regulations 

A. Except as indicated in paragraph B of 

this section, the regulations that apply to the 

AP1000 design are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 

73, and 100, codified as of January 23, 2006, 

that are applicable and technically relevant, 

as described in the FSER (NUREG–1793) and 

Supplement No. 1. 

B. The AP1000 design is exempt from 

portions of the following regulations: 

1. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34—

Plant Safety Parameter Display Console; 

2. Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62—

Auxiliary (or emergency) feedwater system; 

and 

3. Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, GDC 

17—Second offsite power supply circuit. 

VI. Issue Resolution 

A. The Commission has determined that 

the structures, systems, components, and 

design features of the AP1000 design comply 

with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended, and the applicable 

regulations identified in section V of this 

appendix; and therefore, provide adequate 

protection to the health and safety of the 

public. A conclusion that a matter is resolved 

includes the finding that additional or 

alternative structures, systems, components, 

design features, design criteria, testing, 

analyses, acceptance criteria, or justifications 

are not necessary for the AP1000 design. 

B. The Commission considers the 

following matters resolved within the 

meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4) in subsequent 

proceedings for issuance of a COL, 

amendment of a COL, or renewal of a COL, 

proceedings held under to 10 CFR 52.103, 

and enforcement proceedings involving 

plants referencing this appendix: 

1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the 

generic TS and other operational 

requirements, associated with the 

information in the FSER and Supplement No. 

1, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including referenced 

information, which the context indicates is 

intended as requirements, and the 

investment protection short-term availability 

controls in section 16.3 of the DCD), and the 

rulemaking record for certification of the 

AP1000 design; 

2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues 

associated with the information in 

proprietary and safeguards documents, 

referenced and in context, are intended as 

requirements in the generic DCD for the 

AP1000 design; 

3. All generic changes to the DCD under 

and in compliance with the change processes 

in sections VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this 

appendix; 

4. All exemptions from the DCD under and 

in compliance with the change processes in 

sections VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this 

appendix, but only for that plant; 

5. All departures from the DCD that are 

approved by license amendment, but only for 

that plant; 

6. Except as provided in paragraph 

VIII.B.5.f of this appendix, all departures 

from Tier 2 under and in compliance with 

the change processes in paragraph VIII.B.5 of 

this appendix that do not require prior NRC 

approval, but only for that plant; 

7. All environmental issues concerning 

SAMDAs associated with the information in 

the NRC’s EA for the AP1000 design and 

Appendix 1B of the generic DCD, for plants 

referencing this appendix whose site 

parameters are within those specified in the 

SAMDA evaluation. 

C. The Commission does not consider 

operational requirements for an applicant or 

licensee who references this appendix to be 

matters resolved within the meaning of 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(4). The Commission reserves 

the right to require operational requirements 

for an applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix by rule, regulation, order, or 

license condition. 

D. Except under the change processes in 

section VIII of this appendix, the 

Commission may not require an applicant or 

licensee who references this appendix to: 

1. Modify structures, systems, components, 

or design features as described in the generic 

DCD; 

2. Provide additional or alternative 

structures, systems, components, or design 

features not discussed in the generic DCD; or 

3. Provide additional or alternative design 

criteria, testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, 

or justification for structures, systems, 

components, or design features discussed in 

the generic DCD. 

E.1. Persons who wish to review 

proprietary and safeguards information or 

other secondary references in the AP1000 

DCD, in order to request or participate in the 

hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85 or the 

hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or to 

request or participate in any other hearing 

relating to this appendix in which interested 

persons have adjudicatory hearing rights, 

shall first request access to such information 

from Westinghouse. The request must state 

with particularity: 

a. The nature of the proprietary or other 

information sought; 

b. The reason why the information 

currently available to the public in the NRC’s 

public document room is insufficient; 

c. The relevance of the requested 

information to the hearing issue(s) which the 

person proposes to raise; and 

d. A showing that the requesting person 

has the capability to understand and utilize 

the requested information. 

2. If a person claims that the information 

is necessary to prepare a request for hearing, 

the request must be filed no later than 15 

days after publication in the Federal Register 

of the notice required either by 10 CFR 52.85 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4480 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

or 10 CFR 52.103. If Westinghouse declines 

to provide the information sought, 

Westinghouse shall send a written response 

within ten (10) days of receiving the request 

to the requesting person setting forth with 

particularity the reasons for its refusal. The 

person may then request the Commission (or 

presiding officer, if a proceeding has been 

established) to order disclosure. The person 

shall include copies of the original request 

(and any subsequent clarifying information 

provided by the requesting party to the 

applicant) and the applicant’s response. The 

Commission and presiding officer shall base 

their decisions solely on the person’s original 

request (including any clarifying information 

provided by the requesting person to 

Westinghouse), and Westinghouse’s 

response. The Commission and presiding 

officer may order Westinghouse to provide 

access to some or all of the requested 

information, subject to an appropriate nondisclosure agreement. 

VII. Duration of This Appendix 

This appendix may be referenced for a 

period of 15 years from February 27, 2006, 

except as provided for in 10 CFR 52.55(b) 

and 52.57(b). This appendix remains valid 

for an applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix until the application is 

withdrawn or the license expires, including 

any period of extended operation under a 

renewed license. 

VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures 

A. Tier 1 Information 

1. Generic changes to Tier 1 information 

are governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). 

2. Generic changes to Tier 1 information 

are applicable to all applicants or licensees 

who reference this appendix, except those for 

which the change has been rendered 

technically irrelevant by action taken under 

paragraphs A.3 or A.4 of this section. 

3. Departures from Tier 1 information that 

are required by the Commission through 

plant-specific orders are governed by the 

requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3). 

4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are 

governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 

52.63(b)(1) and 52.97(b). The Commission 

will deny a request for an exemption from 

Tier 1, if it finds that the design change will 

result in a significant decrease in the level of 

safety otherwise provided by the design. 

B. Tier 2 Information 

1. Generic changes to Tier 2 information 

are governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). 

2. Generic changes to Tier 2 information 

are applicable to all applicants or licensees 

who reference this appendix, except those for 

which the change has been rendered 

technically irrelevant by action taken under 

paragraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, or B.6 of this 

section. 

3. The Commission may not require new 

requirements on Tier 2 information by plantspecific order while this appendix is in effect 

under 10 CFR 52.55 or 52.61, unless: 

a. A modification is necessary to secure 

compliance with the Commission’s 

regulations applicable and in effect at the 

time this appendix was approved, as set forth 

in Section V of this appendix, or to ensure 

adequate protection of the public health and 

safety or the common defense and security; 

and 

b. Special circumstances as defined in 10 

CFR 50.12(a) are present. 

4. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix may request an exemption 

from Tier 2 information. The Commission 

may grant such a request only if it determines 

that the exemption will comply with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The 

Commission will deny a request for an 

exemption from Tier 2, if it finds that the 

design change will result in a significant 

decrease in the level of safety otherwise 

provided by the design. The grant of an 

exemption to an applicant must be subject to 

litigation in the same manner as other issues 

material to the license hearing. The grant of 

an exemption to a licensee must be subject 

to an opportunity for a hearing in the same 

manner as license amendments. 

5.a. An applicant or licensee who 

references this appendix may depart from 

Tier 2 information, without prior NRC 

approval, unless the proposed departure 

involves a change to or departure from Tier 

1 information, Tier 2* information, or the TS, 

or requires a license amendment under 

paragraphs B.5.b or B.5.c of this section. 

When evaluating the proposed departure, an 

applicant or licensee shall consider all 

matters described in the plant-specific DCD. 

b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other 

than one affecting resolution of a severe 

accident issue identified in the plant-specific 

DCD, requires a license amendment if it 

would: 

(1) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the frequency of occurrence of an accident 

previously evaluated in the plant-specific 

DCD; 

(2) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the likelihood of occurrence of a 

malfunction of a structure, system, or 

component (SSC) important to safety and 

previously evaluated in the plant-specific 

DCD; 

(3) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated in the plant-specific 

DCD; 

(4) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the consequences of a malfunction of an 

SSC important to safety previously evaluated 

in the plant-specific DCD; 

(5) Create a possibility for an accident of 

a different type than any evaluated 

previously in the plant-specific DCD; 

(6) Create a possibility for a malfunction of 

an SSC important to safety with a different 

result than any evaluated previously in the 

plant-specific DCD; 

(7) Result in a design basis limit for a 

fission product barrier as described in the 

plant-specific DCD being exceeded or altered; 

or 

(8) Result in a departure from a method of 

evaluation described in the plant-specific 

DCD used in establishing the design bases or 

in the safety analyses. 

c. A proposed departure from Tier 2 

affecting resolution of a severe accident issue 

identified in the plant-specific DCD, requires 

a license amendment if: 

(1) There is a substantial increase in the 

probability of a severe accident such that a 

particular severe accident previously 

reviewed and determined to be not credible 

could become credible; or 

(2) There is a substantial increase in the 

consequences to the public of a particular 

severe accident previously reviewed. 

d. If a departure requires a license 

amendment under paragraph B.5.b or B.5.c of 

this section, it is governed by 10 CFR 50.90. 

e. A departure from Tier 2 information that 

is made under paragraph B.5 of this section 

does not require an exemption from this 

appendix. 

f. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for 

either the issuance, amendment, or renewal 

of a license or for operation under 10 CFR 

52.103(a), who believes that an applicant or 

licensee who references this appendix has 

not complied with paragraph VIII.B.5 of this 

appendix when departing from Tier 2 

information, may petition to admit into the 

proceeding such a contention. In addition to 

compliance with the general requirements of 

10 CFR 2.309, the petition must demonstrate 

that the departure does not comply with 

paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix. Further, 

the petition must demonstrate that the 

change bears on an asserted noncompliance 

with an ITAAC acceptance criterion in the 

case of a 10 CFR 52.103 preoperational 

hearing, or that the change bears directly on 

the amendment request in the case of a 

hearing on a license amendment. Any other 

party may file a response. If, on the basis of 

the petition and any response, the presiding 

officer determines that a sufficient showing 

has been made, the presiding officer shall 

certify the matter directly to the Commission 

for determination of the admissibility of the 

contention. The Commission may admit such 

a contention if it determines the petition 

raises a genuine issue of material fact 

regarding compliance with paragraph VIII.B.5 

of this appendix. 

6.a. An applicant who references this 

appendix may not depart from Tier 2* 

information, which is designated with 

italicized text or brackets and an asterisk in 

the generic DCD, without NRC approval. The 

departure will not be considered a resolved 

issue, within the meaning of Section VI of 

this appendix and 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). 

b. A licensee who references this appendix 

may not depart from the following Tier 2* 

matters without prior NRC approval. A 

request for a departure will be treated as a 

request for a license amendment under 10 

CFR 50.90. 

(1) Maximum fuel rod average burn-up. 

(2) Fuel principal design requirements. 

(3) Fuel criteria evaluation process. 

(4) Fire areas. 

(5) Human factors engineering. 

(6) Small-break loss-of-coolant accident 

(LOCA) analysis methodology. 

c. A licensee who references this appendix 

may not, before the plant first achieves full 

power following the finding required by 10 

CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier 

2* matters except under paragraph B.6.b of 

this section. After the plant first achieves full 

power, the following Tier 2* matters revert 

to Tier 2 status and are subject to the 

departure provisions in paragraph B.5 of this 

section. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4481 

(1) Nuclear Island structural dimensions. 

(2) American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code 

(ASME Code), Section III, and Code Case284. 

(3) Design Summary of Critical Sections. 

(4) American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318, 

ACI 349, American National Standards 

Institute/American Institute of Steel 

Construction (ANSI/AISC)–690, and 

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), 

‘‘Specification for the Design of Cold Formed 

Steel Structural Members, Part 1 and 2,’’

1996 Edition and 2000 Supplement. 

(5) Definition of critical locations and 

thicknesses. 

(6) Seismic qualification methods and 

standards. 

(7) Nuclear design of fuel and reactivity 

control system, except burn-up limit. 

(8) Motor-operated and power-operated 

valves. 

(9) Instrumentation and control system 

design processes, methods, and standards. 

(10) Passive residual heat removal (PRHR) 

natural circulation test (first plant only). 

(11) Automatic depressurization system 

(ADS) and core make-up tank (CMT) 

verification tests (first three plants only). 

(12) Polar crane parked orientation. 

(13) Piping design acceptance criteria. 

(14) Containment vessel design parameters. 

d. Departures from Tier 2* information that 

are made under paragraph B.6 of this section 

do not require an exemption from this 

appendix. 

C. Operational Requirements 

1. Generic changes to generic TS and other 

operational requirements that were 

completely reviewed and approved in the 

design certification rulemaking and do not 

require a change to a design feature in the 

generic DCD are governed by the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.109. Generic 

changes that require a change to a design 

feature in the generic DCD are governed by 

the requirements in paragraphs A or B of this 

section. 

2. Generic changes to generic TS and other 

operational requirements are applicable to all 

applicants who reference this appendix, 

except those for which the change has been 

rendered technically irrelevant by action 

taken under paragraphs C.3 or C.4 of this 

section. 

3. The Commission may require plantspecific departures on generic TS and other 

operational requirements that were 

completely reviewed and approved, provided 

a change to a design feature in the generic 

DCD is not required and special 

circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.335 are 

present. The Commission may modify or 

supplement generic TS and other operational 

requirements that were not completely 

reviewed and approved or require additional 

TS and other operational requirements on a 

plant-specific basis, provided a change to a 

design feature in the generic DCD is not 

required. 

4. An applicant who references this 

appendix may request an exemption from the 

generic TS or other operational requirements. 

The Commission may grant such a request 

only if it determines that the exemption will 

comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.12(a). The grant of an exemption must be 

subject to litigation in the same manner as 

other issues material to the license hearing. 

5. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding 

for either the issuance, amendment, or 

renewal of a license, or for operation under 

10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an 

operational requirement approved in the 

DCD or a TS derived from the generic TS 

must be changed may petition to admit such 

a contention into the proceeding. The 

petition must comply with the general 

requirements of 10 CFR 2.309 and must 

demonstrate why special circumstances as 

defined in 10 CFR 2.335 are present, or 

demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s regulations in effect at the time 

this appendix was approved, as set forth in 

section V of this appendix. Any other party 

may file a response to the petition. If, on the 

basis of the petition and any response, the 

presiding officer determines that a sufficient 

showing has been made, the presiding officer 

shall certify the matter directly to the 

Commission for determination of the 

admissibility of the contention. All other 

issues with respect to the plant-specific TS 

or other operational requirements are subject 

to a hearing as part of the license proceeding. 

6. After issuance of a license, the generic 

TS have no further effect on the plantspecific TS. Changes to the plant-specific TS 

will be treated as license amendments under 

10 CFR 50.90. 

IX. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) 

A.1 An applicant or licensee who 

references this appendix shall perform and 

demonstrate conformance with the ITAAC 

before fuel load. With respect to activities 

subject to an ITAAC, an applicant for a 

license may proceed at its own risk with 

design and procurement activities. A licensee 

may also proceed at its own risk with design, 

procurement, construction, and 

preoperational activities, even though the 

NRC may not have found that any particular 

ITAAC has been satisfied. 

2. The licensee who references this 

appendix shall notify the NRC that the 

required inspections, tests, and analyses in 

the ITAAC have been successfully completed 

and that the corresponding acceptance 

criteria have been met. 

3. If an activity is subject to an ITAAC and 

the applicant or licensee who references this 

appendix has not demonstrated that the 

ITAAC has been satisfied, the applicant or 

licensee may either take corrective actions to 

successfully complete that ITAAC, request an 

exemption from the ITAAC under section 

VIII of this appendix and 10 CFR 52.97(b), or 

petition for rulemaking to amend this 

appendix by changing the requirements of 

the ITAAC, under 10 CFR 2.802 and 52.97(b). 

Such rulemaking changes to the ITAAC must 

meet the requirements of paragraph VIII.A.1 

of this appendix. 

B.1 The NRC shall ensure that the required 

inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC 

are performed. The NRC shall verify that the 

inspections, tests, and analyses referenced by 

the licensee have been successfully 

completed and, based solely thereon, find 

that the prescribed acceptance criteria have 

been met. At appropriate intervals during 

construction, the NRC shall publish notices 

of the successful completion of ITAAC in the 

Federal Register. 

2. Under 10 CFR 52.99 and 52.103(g), the 

Commission shall find that the acceptance 

criteria in the ITAAC for the license are met 

before fuel load. 

3. After the Commission has made the 

finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the 

ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion 

within the DCD, constitute regulatory 

requirements either for licensees or for 

renewal of the license; except for specific 

ITAAC, which are the subject of a section 

103(a) hearing, their expiration will occur 

upon final Commission action in such a 

proceeding. However, subsequent 

modifications must comply with the Tier 1 

and Tier 2 design descriptions in the plantspecific DCD unless the licensee has 

complied with the applicable requirements of 

10 CFR 52.97 and section VIII of this 

appendix. 

X. Records and Reporting 

A. Records 

1. The applicant for this appendix shall 

maintain a copy of the generic DCD that 

includes all generic changes to Tier 1, Tier 

2, and the generic TS and other operational 

requirements. The applicant shall maintain 

the proprietary and safeguards information 

referenced in the generic DCD for the period 

that this appendix may be referenced, as 

specified in section VII of this appendix. 

2. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall maintain the plantspecific DCD to accurately reflect both 

generic changes to the generic DCD and 

plant-specific departures made under section 

VIII of this appendix throughout the period 

of application and for the term of the license 

(including any period of renewal). 

3. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall prepare and maintain 

written evaluations which provide the bases 

for the determinations required by section 

VIII of this appendix. These evaluations must 

be retained throughout the period of 

application and for the term of the license 

(including any period of renewal). 

B. Reporting 

1. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall submit a report to the 

NRC containing a brief description of any 

plant-specific departures from the DCD, 

including a summary of the evaluation of 

each. This report must be filed in accordance 

with the filing requirements applicable to 

reports in 10 CFR 50.4. 

2. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall submit updates to its 

DCD, which reflect the generic changes to 

and plant-specific departures from the 

generic DCD made under section VIII of this 

appendix. These updates shall be filed under 

the filing requirements applicable to final 

safety analysis report updates in 10 CFR 50.4 

and 50.71(e). 

3. The reports and updates required by 

paragraphs X.B.1 and X.B.2 must be 

submitted as follows: 

a. On the date that an application for a 

license referencing this appendix is 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4482 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

submitted, the application must include the 

report and any updates to the generic DCD. 

b. During the interval from the date of 

application for a license to the date the 

Commission makes its findings under 10 CFR 

52.103(g), the report must be submitted semiannually. Updates to the plant-specific DCD 

must be submitted annually and may be 

submitted along with amendments to the 

application. 

c. After the Commission has made its 

finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the reports 

and updates to the plant-specific DCD must 

be submitted, along with updates to the sitespecific portion of the final safety analysis 

report for the facility, at the intervals 

required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2) and 

50.71(e)(4), respectively, or at shorter 

intervals as specified in the license. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of January 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–788 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–20034; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–178–AD; Amendment 

39–14463; AD 2006–02–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, 

DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–

10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–

40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, 

and MD–11F Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

McDonnell Douglas transport category 

airplanes. This AD requires doing 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

accumulation of debris (blockage) in the 

drain holes of the pitot tubes, and 

cleaning the hole if any evidence of 

debris is found. This AD results from 

reports of blocked drain holes of the 

pitot tubes. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent blocked drain holes of the pitot 

tubes, which could result in the 

accumulation of water in the pitot-static 

system and consequent failure of that 

system. Failure of the pitot-static system 

could result in erroneous airspeed 

indications in the cockpit and 

consequent loss of airspeed control. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

March 3, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for service information 

identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5350; 

fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility office 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain McDonnell Douglas 

Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–

15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A 

and KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, 

MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F, MD–11, and 

MD–11F airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2005 (70 FR 2062). That 

NPRM proposed to require doing 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

accumulation of debris (blockage) of the 

drain holes of the pitot tubes, and 

cleaning the hole if any evidence of 

debris is found. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Support for the NPRM 

One commenter supports the NPRM. 

Requests To Extend Repetitive Interval 

Three commenters request that the 

650-flight-hour interval for the 

repetitive detailed inspections in 

paragraph (f) of the NPRM be increased. 

One commenter, the airplane 

manufacturer, states that it originally 

recommended an interval of 650 flight 

hours because that was believed to be 

greater than the A-check interval in use 

at that time. The commenter points out 

that an A-check for some operators is 

now approaching 1,000 flight hours and 

recommends that interval. The 

commenter also states that inspection 

data, which cover as much as ten years, 

show that there have been no findings 

of blockage of the holes of the pitot tube 

drain tube since implementation of 

repetitive inspections. 

A second commenter states that it has 

performed the proposed repetitive 

inspections on its fleet every 2,000 flight 

hours since July 1999. The results of an 

analysis conducted by the commenter 

revealed no events of all three pitot tube 

drains being blocked and only two 

events where the drain holes on one of 

the three pitot tubes were blocked. 

Based on this service history, the 

commenter does not support a repetitive 

interval of less than 2,000 flight hours. 

A third commenter states that an 

interval shorter than an A-check would 

require operators to perform the 

proposed visual and forced-air 

inspections during turnaround of the 

airplane. The commenter’s normal 

turnaround time is 2 hours. The 

commenter further states that the 

proposed visual and forced air 

inspections take at least one hour, and 

that it takes at least an additional 20 

minutes for the pitot probes to cool 

down. In addition, the commenter states 

that its airplanes have never had 

blockage through calcium build-up; 

however, it has heard from other 

operators that calcium blockage takes 

more than a year to build up. Therefore, 

the commenter concludes that it would 

be costly to do the proposed inspections 

during a turnaround and suggests an 

interval of at least 850 flight hours, 

preferably 1,000 flight hours. 

We agree that the repetitive 

inspection interval can be extended 

somewhat. Since issuance of the NPRM, 

we have analyzed further in-service data 

from the airplane manufacturer and 

failure rate data for a blocked pitot tube 

from DC–10, MD–10, and MD–11 

service history, which included 22 

reported events. 

The airplane manufacturer performed 

an analysis using four maintenance 

intervals: 650, 700, 1,000, and 1,500 

flight hours. The results of the analysis 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES